Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Members' Voting Rights

Peter Bone: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the voting rights of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies in relation to matters that affect only England.

David Amess: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the voting rights of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies on matters not affecting Scotland.

Adam Afriyie: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues regarding voting rights of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies on matters not affecting Scotland.

Alistair Darling: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I express the good wishes of the whole House to Mr. Speaker? We look forward to seeing him back as soon as possible and hope that he makes a good recovery.
	I have frequent discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of issues.

Peter Bone: Does the Secretary of State agree that it cannot be fair or democratic for hon. Members from Scottish constituencies to vote on matters that affect only England? The only reason proposals have not been introduced to address that anomaly is that it would be to the Government's electoral disadvantage.

Alistair Darling: No, I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman should read the letter sent to the Financial Times by Professor Vernon Bogdanor, who is an expert on such matters—I believe that he tutored the Leader of the Opposition—and who has pointed out the difficulties in creating two classes of MPs. He has made the case for hon. Members being able to vote on all matters that come before them.

David Amess: Does the Secretary of State realise how offensive his remarks are to those of us who firmly believe in democracy? Given that there is a Scottish Parliament, will the Secretary of State do something to address the disquiet felt among the splendid Scottish Labour Members who feel that the creation of a two-tier membership system for this House of Commons is very wrong?

Alistair Darling: Given the hon. Gentleman's past performance, I look forward to his representing a Scottish seat one day.

Adam Afriyie: Will the Secretary of State explain the precise logic by which Scottish MPs can vote on English laws?

Alistair Darling: Those elected to this House are entitled to participate in all of its proceedings, debates and votes. On his website, the hon. Gentleman makes the point that we need to preserve the British constitution. Our constitutional settlement is currently asymmetrical, but the principle that there should be one class of MP that participates in all proceedings is sound.

David Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scottish public have no interest in the West Lothian question, apart from remembering that English Tories imposed the poll tax on Scotland? The Tories object to Scottish MPs participating in English business, but Tory Members are participating in Scottish questions as usual. We do not object to that—in fact, we welcome it—because every time English Tories take part in Scottish questions, support for Labour in Scotland goes up.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have no objection to MPs participating in any proceedings. I see that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is the sole Conservative MP in Scotland, voted no fewer than five times on the Government of Wales Bill last night. In June last year, he voted on special schools and special education, NHS dentistry, council tax and licensing, all of which affect England. I would be interested to know when he established his great principle of not voting on English matters.

Tom Harris: My right hon. Friend knows that Northern Ireland had its own legislature and Prime Minister for 50 years, but it continued to send Members of Parliament to this House. Will he enlighten the House on why the Conservative party supported the right of Northern Ireland Members to vote on all issues before this House during those 50 years?

Alistair Darling: Since 1987, I recollect many Northern Ireland Members voting more often than not with the Conservative party, so the issue was not a problem for the Conservative party. We are seeing sheer, naked opportunism from a party that used to stand in Scotland as the Conservative and Unionist party—now it has given up on Scotland altogether.

Anne Begg: Does the Secretary of State understand the strange logic by which a Scottish borders MP, whose constituents travel across the border daily for work and pleasure, refused to vote on a smoking ban but felt it right to vote on the Government of Wales Bill last night?

Alistair Darling: I find it difficult to follow, too. If I were to represent a constituency from which several thousand people travel across the border every day, I would take an interest in their well-being at work, which might be affected by the smoking ban. I had no difficulty in voting on that matter, and I cannot understand why any other hon. Member would, too.

Alex Salmond: May I associate the Scottish National party with the Secretary of State's remarks about Mr. Speaker and our hope for his early restoration to the Chair and to good health?
	Let me understand this issue correctly. English Conservative MPs are revolting because the Secretary of State for Scotland is threatening to vote on English education with the Prime Minister, and with English Conservative MPs, but against what any normal person in England would like. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland therefore stop upsetting the revolting English Conservative MPs and undertake not to agree with them or to vote with them on the English Education and Inspections Bill?

Alistair Darling: This cannot be one of the hon. Gentleman's more lucid days. I would say, though, that Conservatives and Unionists should think long and hard about going down a road whereby they would end up in the same bed as the Scottish National party.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the early-day motion submitted by SNP Members on the principled position that hon. Members should not vote on matters not relevant to Scotland. Why, then, have they voted consistently on the Government of Wales Bill?

Alistair Darling: I think that my hon. Friend will find that the nationalists vote when it suits them—there is no issue of principle at all. The big difference between us and them is that they want to break up the United Kingdom. The Conservatives should think very hard before they go down that road.

John Thurso: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I associate my hon. Friends with the Secretary of State's remarks about Mr. Speaker and wish him a speedy recovery?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that for as long as the Scotland Act 1998 provides for any legislation enacted here at Westminster subsequently to be imposed in Scotland by Order in Council, it is vital that all MPs maintain their right to vote on that legislation? Does he further agree that the only logical answer to the West Lothian question is devolution for England, not the parliamentary gerrymandering of the party formerly known as Unionist?

Alistair Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to work out which one of his leadership candidates he will support, since I have not heard such a clear exposition of a principled position for some time. The key principle is that we are all elected to the House of Commons in the same way and are all entitled to take part in all the proceedings and Divisions. Once that changes and there are two classes of MPs, there are profound constitutional consequences. What we have from the Conservatives is sheer, naked opportunism. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am looking forward to him explaining why he has managed to vote on so many measures that affect purely English matters, given that he claims that he will not do so on a matter of principle.

Climate Change

Mark Lazarowicz: What discussions he has had with Scottish Ministers on the contribution from Scotland to the UK's international climate change targets.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of matters.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the contributions that Scotland can make to tackling climate change is by tapping our immense reserves of renewable energy. In that connection, I am glad that the go-ahead has at last been given to funding for the development of wave power, such as that undertaken by a company based in my constituency. Given that it took some time for that fund to get going, through no fault of the Government, will my hon. Friend ensure that applications to it are dealt with quickly so that we do not lose the immense advantage that we have in this field and let the lead that we have in this technology be taken by other countries in Europe?

David Cairns: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the progress that he is making with his private Member's Bill, which will make a considerable contribution to the debate. I understand that the Committee considering it has a further sitting this afternoon. He is right to highlight the Government's commitment to marine renewables. I welcome, as he does, the announcement made on 8 February by the Minister for Energy of a £50 million marine renewable development fund, building on the £25 million that has already been made available. The company that my hon. Friend mentions, Ocean Power Delivery, has already benefited from some £3.2 million of this development money. The deadline for applications is 8 May, so there is some time left. I look forward to that money going out to those who are successful in getting a grant so that they can carry on with research into the important contribution that marine renewables can make to our energy commitments.

David Mundell: I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State's good wishes to Mr. Speaker.
	I am sure that the Minister agrees that Scotland's climate change targets will be best met through a balanced energy policy; that is why I welcome Scottish Labour's decision to support nuclear power. But how will the Scottish Executive be able to deliver on that commitment when the Secretary of State says that the Liberal Democrats run away from hard decisions and fail to face up to their responsibilities?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman has a cheek to talk about people running away from tough decisions when the Conservatives have called for a moratorium on the development of wind farms, which make a significant contribution to tackling climate change.
	We have said all along that it is foolish to rule out completely the possibility of renewing Scotland's nuclear-generating capacity or having a new generation—that is part of the energy debate. We believe that there will have to be a mix of energy—some will come from renewables, which the Conservative party opposes, and some may come from nuclear, to which some parties, with one or two honourable exceptions, have simply closed their minds. We are taking a balanced view.

John Robertson: As a Glasgow Member of Parliament, may I associate myself with the sentiments expressed about Mr. Speaker?
	Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Scottish Labour party on the decision that it made at the weekend? Does he agree that clean coal technology, nuclear and all other forms of energy should be part of a balanced energy policy? Will he ensure that the dinosaurs that still exist north of the border do not stop the process of getting energy for this country through stupid planning means?

David Cairns: The essential question that must be asked during the energy review is: how can we provide the energy that our country needs without wrecking the planet in the process? We have two commitments: we need to keep the lights on and tackle fuel poverty, and do it in a way that is consistent with our international obligations on climate change. Some parties pay lip service to the environment, others pay lip service to the economy, but we have to manage both.

Nuclear Submarine Facilities

Philip Hollobone: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the future of nuclear submarine facilities in Scotland.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on a range of issues.

Philip Hollobone: Given the importance of the naval base at Faslane to the Scottish economy, by what date does the Under-Secretary expect a decision on the replacement for Trident to be announced?

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said yesterday in Defence questions that it was hoped that a decision would be made during this Parliament. Of course, the decision does not have to come into force for 20 or 25 years, so there is no rush.
	The future of Faslane does not depend on a replacement for Trident. It depended on the Government's decision to base the Astute class submarine at Faslane, which means £135 million of investment in Faslane and the local economy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

David Mundell: Will the Under-Secretary confirm whether the Scottish Executive has any form of veto over future nuclear defence development in Scotland?

David Cairns: No, defence is reserved.

Road Network

Stephen Hepburn: What improvements are planned to road links between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Alistair Darling: Traffic to and from Scotland benefits from many of the improvements to the strategic road network.

Stephen Hepburn: In the past decade, one casualty a week on average has occurred on the A1 between Scotland and Newcastle. The road accidents and the road's effect on economic development cause considerable anxiety to residents on both sides of the border. When will my right hon. Friend, in his role as Secretary of State for Scotland, convince himself in his role as Secretary of State for Transport for the United Kingdom that the road needs dualling once and for all?

Alistair Darling: We have many useful and productive discussions about those matters and we happily find ourselves in complete agreement.
	My hon. Friend knows that, five or six years ago, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned a report on what was required for the A1 north of Newcastle and up to the border, on the basis of which I came to the view that there was neither an economic nor an operational case for dualling the road. It recommended improvements for safety and other reasons and work has continued on working up such schemes. I am surprised that the north-east region did not prioritise them in the recent exercise and I shall have to consider how to proceed in the light of that. Although there is no case at the moment for dualling the road all the way to the border, there is a case for making improvements, especially to deal with the safety points that my hon. Friend raised. I hope to say something further about that, probably in the late spring.

David Mundell: When the Secretary of State next lobbies himself, perhaps he could raise the case of the M74 between Gretna and Carlisle. Will he then let us know the exact start date for that project and give us an assurance that there will be no further delays?

Alistair Darling: I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement about that fairly quickly, and that construction will start imminently. Both Secretaries of State will make an announcement at the appropriate time. I must point out that those improvements have been made possible only by the huge additional investment that we have promised, every single penny of which was opposed by Tory MPs, both north and south of the border.

Arbuthnott Report

Brian H Donohoe: What assessment his Department has made of the Arbuthnott report on electoral arrangements in Scotland.

David Cairns: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on the day of publication, and as I confirmed in the recent Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend on the Arbuthnott report, we now have an opportunity for consideration and debate, and we will respond to the proposals in due course.

Brian H Donohoe: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I understand the practical problems associated with changing the voting system in time for the 2007 elections, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be possible to introduce legislation in this Parliament to change it in time for the elections in 2011?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we have ruled out the possibility of legislating in advance of the 2007 elections. They are only just over a year away, and preparations for them are very much under way. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Arbuthnott commission for the work that they have done. We now need to respect their work by giving it the most careful consideration possible.

Danny Alexander: When considering the Arbuthnott commission's report, will the Minister pay special attention to its observations on the benefits of having a system of proportional representation for UK parliamentary elections? Although that was not one of the report's recommendations, it was a subject on which the commission took evidence. Will the Minister give the matter careful consideration when responding to the report?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see what our response to the report says.

Rosemary McKenna: We all welcome the hard work that went into the Arbuthnott commission's report, but many of us were disappointed at one aspect of it in particular, namely that it did not recommend the abolition of the practice of standing in the list and in a first-past-the-post election. Will the Minister assure us that that matter will be considered when these issues come before Parliament?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that Sir John Arbuthnott did not recommend that change; indeed, he specifically recommended that it should not be made. No such change will be made before the 2007 elections, and any change that could be made would undoubtedly affect only subsequent elections.

Members' Voting Rights

Philip Dunne: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies voting on the Education and Inspections Bill.

Alistair Darling: I have frequent discussions with my ministerial colleagues on a wide range of matters.

Philip Dunne: Given the anticipated publication of the Education and Inspections Bill later this afternoon, has the Secretary of State been able to assure the Prime Minister that he will be able to rely on the votes of Labour MPs representing Scottish constituencies during the passage of the Bill, which has no jurisdiction over schools in Scotland? How many of those MPs support the alternative White Paper?

Alistair Darling: We discussed this matter a short while ago, and our position remains exactly the same. I suspect that the Conservatives' interest in this issue stems not so much from principle, given that, in the last two general elections, they have managed to get only one MP elected in Scotland. The Conservatives spent more than £1.3 million in Scotland at the last election, and all they got for it was the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). And to cap it all, they also want him to be a part-time MP.

James McGovern: We are given 30 minutes once a month to raise specifically Scottish issues. It would appear that the Opposition have conspired to ensure that we end up debating English issues today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that helps to illustrate why the Tories in Scotland have, to all intents and purposes, been wiped out?

Alistair Darling: I am very pleased that so many Members from different parts of the country have come along today. That ought to be encouraged. As I have said, I believe that all Members should take an interest in every matter that is put before the House.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman referred to principle a moment ago. Does he not understand that the basic principle of any democratic Assembly is that Members of Parliament should not be able to vote on matters that concern neither themselves nor their constituents?

Alistair Darling: I do not think that that is right.

Jim Devine: Surely the answer to the so-called West Lothian question is Bill Shankly. When a new offside rule was introduced, allowing a goal when a player was in the penalty box and not interfering with play, he famously retorted that if his players were not interfering with play for 100 per cent. of the time, he would want to know why. We are on the park and we are playing. We are from Scotland, we are from Northern Ireland, we are from Wales. I seem to recall that the Conservative party believed in the Union at one point. In this debate, the only logical conclusion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this period should be devoted to the asking of questions.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently, and I agree with it. The difficulty for the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—the solitary Conservative spokesman—is that in the past year he has voted on a range of matters relating to, for instance, English dentistry, English health care, English education and English local government. I find it hard to believe that he has now discovered a principle according to which he should not vote on those matters. He should recall that his predecessor, the previous Conservative Member, said that he did not vote on English matters, but we learned that he had voted on the Mersey Tunnels Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman is getting into a huge amount of trouble. As I have said, it is all driven by the Tories' frustration at not being able to get anyone elected north of the border.

Members' Voting Rights

David Gauke: What discussions he has had with colleagues regarding voting rights of hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland on matters that do not affect Scotland.

Alistair Darling: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to Questions 1, 2 and 3. I suspect that it is remarkably similar to the answer that I shall give him in a moment.

David Gauke: I am grateful to the Secretary of State.
	Next month various Scottish right hon. and hon. Members will support the Education and Inspections Bill, including the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Conservative Members will welcome them in the Lobby on that occasion. Is it not the case, though, that the Bill will not apply to Scotland, and that it is wrong and unfair—and, indeed, recognised to be wrong and unfair by many Labour Members—for MPs to vote on a matter that does not affect their constituencies?

Alistair Darling: Of course, the constituents of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) go and enjoy an English education south of the border. He therefore has an interest in voting for the Bill, although he does not seem to accept that.
	As I have told the House before, it is difficult to distinguish between matters that are wholly Scottish, wholly English or wholly Welsh and matters that are not. We find ourselves in difficulty when we start saying that some MPs have more rights than others. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and his colleagues ought to think long and hard before taking a route that is more likely than not to lead to exactly where the nationalists would like them to end up.

Pete Wishart: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there are two classes of Member of Parliament? There are Members like him and me, who have no say on education, health or criminal justice in our constituencies, and Members who do have that right. Is it not absurd, and grossly unfair, that we intervene in those constituency interests?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that there are two classes of MP. There are those of us who believe in the Union of the United Kingdom, and those of us who are against it. I have no difficulty in saying that I support the United Kingdom: that is why I am a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. I know that the hon. Gentleman believes in breaking up the United Kingdom, but I think that that would be an act of monumental stupidity.

Fisheries

Stephen Crabb: What recent discussions he has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the Scottish fishing industry.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on a range of issues.

Stephen Crabb: Given that the common fisheries policy has failed so comprehensively to protect either the livelihoods of our fishermen or our fish stocks, what specific steps is the Minister taking to repatriate control of our fish stocks and to ensure that we have a viable fishing industry in the future?

David Cairns: This is another example of the Conservatives and the SNP sharing exactly the same policy, and the hon. Gentleman really ought to question himself very closely whenever he finds that he and his party are occupying the same position as the SNP. During our presidency of the European Council, this Government achieved a good deal last December that will preserve marine stocks and the marine environment, and help the long-term future of the fishing industry. Calls to pull out of the common fisheries policy are a complete distraction from the real issue.

Parliamentary Relations

Greg Hands: What recent assessment he has made of the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament.

Alistair Darling: The relationship is strong and constructive.

Greg Hands: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer but it is my understanding that under the Scotland Act 1998, Scotland is supposed to have the same electoral quota for parliamentary constituencies as England. Will he look again at reducing the number of Scottish MPs from 59 to 57, thereby henceforth having the same electoral quota as parliamentary constituencies in England?

Alistair Darling: As the hon. Gentleman is, I think, aware, the number of Scots MPs was reduced at the last general election and the quota is broadly the same. The boundary commission recognised that the Western Isles and the Northern Isles present particular difficulties in terms of reducing the number further, but there is now broad parity between constituencies, even allowing for the problems associated with the geographical spread. However, these are matters for the boundary commission and the Electoral Commission, and they will doubtless keep them under review.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Minister of State was asked—

Electoral Registration (Barnet)

Andrew Dismore: If she will make a statement on the level of electoral registration in the London borough of Barnet.

Harriet Harman: In the London borough of Barnet, there are probably some 22,000 people who are eligible to vote but who are not on the electoral register, and who are therefore unable to vote.

Andrew Dismore: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that this is a lamentable performance by Conservative-run Barnet council, given that almost a quarter of voters have not been registered? Does this not demonstrate the council's complete lack of commitment to the democratic process? It put out 64 canvassers only last year and it is now reduced to paying them £1.50 per voter signed up; such paying by piece rate is a real sign of desperation. It has not, so far as I can see, taken up the issue of data matching or been imaginative by, for example, trying to register people at supermarkets and further education and sixth-form colleges. Does this not show that the Conservative party really has no interest in democracy?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are probably more than half a million Londoners who are eligible to vote at the forthcoming council elections, but who will be unable to do so because they are not on the electoral register. The important thing is for electoral administrators in all boroughs to find those hard-to-register voters. This is not, by and large, a problem associated with white home owners aged over 55; rather, it is associated more with young members of black and minority ethnic groups who live in private rented accommodation. That is the information given to us by the Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Electoral Commission, and all electoral administrators in London need to work on this issue.

David Heath: The situation in Barnet—and, indeed, across London—is, as the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) says, disgraceful. It is unacceptable that more than half a million Londoners who should be registered to vote are not. Has the right hon. and learned Lady had a chance to progress the excellent suggestion, made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) during Second Reading of the Electoral Administration Bill, of having a democracy day, on which we can really sell the concept of electoral registration? Can she report such progress to the House?

Harriet Harman: I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I pay tribute to the contribution made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to the debate on electoral registration. Those Opposition Members who do not represent inner-city areas, where there are very low levels of registration, might not understand the true position in the way that we do. The point is that our democracy is worth its name only if it is equal, and at the moment it is not equal. Those who are black and young and live in rented accommodation in an inner city are less likely to have a vote. We should all be concerned about this issue.

Emily Thornberry: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Islington, which has a Liberal Democrat-run council, only just over 67 per cent. of those eligible to vote have been registered? The Labour group attempted to pass a motion relating to this issue at a council meeting, but it was voted down by the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrat councillor responsible for performance, Terry Stacy, shouted, "That's why we win elections"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should have read the original question, which is on Barnet. Although she can allude to London, she cannot major on another London borough within the scope of this question.

Constituency Electorates

Greg Hands: If she will make a statement on Government policy on equalising the number of registered electors per parliamentary constituency.

Harriet Harman: The Parliamentary Boundary Commission reviews parliamentary boundaries according to the number of registered electors and other geographical and community factors. It will next report to the Government by April next year. That report will be laid before this House, and its proposals will be in force for the next general election.

Greg Hands: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does she accept that our democracy is being damaged by unequal representation in this House? In that regard, I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) through his Parliamentary Constituencies (Equalisation) Bill. There are 239 constituencies in this country that diverge by more than 10 per cent. from the national average. They are not confined to English rural areas: my constituency of Hammersmith and Fulham in inner London has 79,807 electors, is the 57th largest in the UK and is more than 16 per cent. larger than the average. What proposals does she have to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to correct those undemocratic disparities and to make more frequent boundary reviews—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has probably got the point.

Harriet Harman: I should like to thank the boundary commission for the very difficult work that it does. It is not party political, and every hon. Member has an axe to grind with it but, by and large, the House should have confidence in its work, which is independent, neutral and based on research and consultation. The smallest UK constituency—Na h-Eileanan an Iar, in Scotland, formerly the Western Isles—has only 23,000 electors because it is an island. However, the largest has 107,000 electors, but that is also because it is an island. We must take account of geographical factors, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in looking for the estimated 17,000 unregistered voters in his constituency of Hammersmith and Fulham who do not have the right to vote.

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what is the Government's policy in respect of equalising the number of residents who are eligible to be registered as electors in each parliamentary constituency? That is a more important question. Merely to equalise the number of people registered would discriminate against people in the inner cities and those who live in private rented accommodation or houses of multiple occupation or who belong to the black and ethnic minority communities. All of those people are less likely to register in practice.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The boundary commission bases its estimate of a constituency's size on the number of registered electors. If 500,000 possible electors were missing from the register in London, for example, that total would amount to the number of voters in eight parliamentary constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) told us about what is happening with her council, but perhaps the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) should get on to his friends on that local authority and ask them to deal with the same problem there.
	Another problem has to do with the electoral administration canvassers who go around knocking on doors to find the hard-to-register voters. There are only 64 such canvassers in Barnet, but in Southwark we have 170. All areas should aspire to the standards of the best in their work to find our unregistered voters.

Oliver Heald: Surely the Minister is not saying that we should count people who are not registered to vote. How could we possibly guess who they were, or how many of them there were? However, a party that gains the majority of voters in England but ends up with 93 fewer seats cannot say that the system is fair. We need a system that is genuinely fair, so that first past the post works, rather than a flawed proportional representation system. Should not the boundary commission rules be changed so that there is a fixed electoral quota in constituencies across the UK? The Minister may say that the country has plenty of islands, but in reality there are not that many. An equal quota should be the general rule, and the boundary commission's rules need to be changed.

Harriet Harman: I confess that I am not following the hon. Gentleman's line of argument—but I hope that he is not criticising the way in which the boundary commission goes about its work. The House agreed, on an all-party basis, what the framework for the boundary commission should be, and that is the framework on which it operates. I am saying that we should estimate the number who are not registered and get those people registered; then the boundary commission's basis would be much more robust.

Members' Voting Rights

Adam Afriyie: If she will make a statement on the voting rights of hon. Members representing constituencies outside England on matters relating exclusively to England.

Bridget Prentice: Hon. Members are entitled to speak and vote on any issue in this House.

Adam Afriyie: But we must face the fact that there is a constitutional injustice here. To most reasonable people it is illogical, unfair and unjust that Scottish MPs can vote on laws that relate only to England, but English MPs cannot do likewise for Scotland. What specific actions are she and her Department taking to address that democratic inequality?

Bridget Prentice: The Department has absolutely no intention of taking any action to address what is not an inequality. The hon. Gentleman asked the same question a few moments ago, and I was tempted simply to refer him to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave a few moments ago. As the hon. Gentleman voted five times on the Government of Wales Bill last night, I find it difficult to understand why he has difficulty in understanding why every Member of this House has the right to vote on every issue within it.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Could my hon. Friend arrange a series of teach-ins for Members of Parliament who do not understand how long it took to get members of the whole of the United Kingdom—men and women—represented in this House, to explain why they should not lightly, for party political purposes, launch forth on absurd, ill thought-out and farcical campaigns to change that status?

Bridget Prentice: I do not think that my response could put that any better than my hon. Friend has done.

Jonathan Djanogly: Does the Minister not agree that if it was iniquitous for English rule to be imposed on Scotland, it would be just as iniquitous for Scottish rule now to be imposed on England?

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman needs to remember the history of the Conservative—and, at one time, Unionist—party, which imposed laws on Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish people. [Interruption.] I think that everyone knows that I am referring to the poll tax. May I say to the hon. Gentleman—he too voted five times on the Government of Wales Bill last night—that every Member of the House should be treated equally? We should not have two classes of MPs in the House, and matters that affect Scotland are entitled to be voted on by English MPs and vice versa.

Electoral Commission

Julie Morgan: What recent assessment she has made of the operation of the Electoral Commission.

Harriet Harman: The Electoral Commission is an independent body established by Parliament, reporting to the Speaker's Committee. The Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Speaker's Committee are currently reviewing separate aspects of the operation of the Electoral Commission.

Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that although the Electoral Commission has   independent status, it needs clear, transparent accountability too? Does she think that reporting to the Speaker's Committee fulfils that function?

Harriet Harman: The fact that the Electoral Commission is answerable to the Speaker's Committee fulfils an important function, but Members of Parliament can ask Constitutional Affairs Ministers about its work on electoral registration, election fraud and, for example,   registration of service voters, so we have that   additional transparency. Representatives of the Electoral Commission are also happy to meet individual Members of Parliament to discuss its work.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister refer to the Electoral Commission for its consideration the question that has arisen six times since 2.30 pm today? We understand that Ministers do not like English votes on English matters. Do they understand, and could she remind the Electoral Commission, that many English people do not want regional assemblies or extra politicians? Could she ask the Electoral Commission to come up with a solution that would be acceptable in all parts of the House?

Harriet Harman: I do not think that that would come within the Electoral Commission's remit. That is not what it was set up to do, and it would be odd and wrong to give it that responsibility, which is a matter for this House.

Judicial Appointments Commission

Keith Vaz: How many of her civil servants are being transferred to the Judicial Appointments Commission; and if she will make a statement.

Bridget Prentice: No departmental staff will transfer to the Judicial Appointments Commission on 3 April 2006. It is currently anticipated that 80 staff will be seconded to the commission for up to two years. The commission, as an independent body, has the power to recruit its own staff.

Keith Vaz: While I welcome the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission, which is a great constitutional change for the judiciary, transferring or seconding staff amounts to the same thing. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the new organisation, which is intended to be truly independent, should start with no staff from the Department, because some may have preconceived ideas about the method of selection or the qualities of particular candidates? Can she give an assurance that that independence will remain?

Bridget Prentice: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that that independence will remain. I have every confidence that the chair of the commission, Baroness Prashar—of whose appointment I notified the House a month or two ago—will provide the necessary leadership to forge a new and independent body. The JAC will be able to determine its own staffing strategy after its launch on 3 April.

Judiciary

Graham Allen: What steps the Department has taken to encourage the judiciary to interact with other professionals and the public in order to improve mutual understanding.

Bridget Prentice: It is for judges themselves to decide the extent and frequency of their engagement with the local community. However, the Department has taken many steps, in conjunction with the judiciary, to interact with the professions and the public, such as the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships of local authorities and local criminal justice boards, local family justice councils, a judges in schools guide, and developing a protocol for case management to deal with delays in care cases.

Graham Allen: Would my hon. Friend the Minister congratulate the clerk to the magistrates in Nottingham, Mr. Graham Hooper, on convening a conference on Saturday about the community justice options that are now available, including the appointment of community judges? Will she go further and urge all similar colleagues to reach out, so that the criminal justice system can start to play a full part in the attack on antisocial behaviour and criminality, and in the regeneration of our communities? Health services, the police, the education services and many others are involved in that battle, so can we ensure that the criminal justice system also plays its full part?

Bridget Prentice: I certainly support my hon. Friend in congratulating Graham Hooper and his team on the conference that will take place on Saturday. I also add my thanks to my hon. Friend for his part in organising that conference, and I am sure that it will be a great success. I know that he is the chairman of the local regeneration partnership in Nottingham, One Nottingham, whose vision statement of reducing inequality so that no one is disadvantaged is one that we can all endorse. I assure my hon. Friend that we will do all that we can to ensure that the judicial community participates in its local community and that the ideals that he and Mr. Hooper seek to encourage and develop on Saturday are taken further.

Mark Pritchard: The Minister will be aware of the excellent work of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and the Industry and Parliament Trust. What consideration has been given to helping humble Back Benchers such as me to improve their knowledge of the judiciary, perhaps through day-release schemes—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should say early release schemes. Such a scheme would enable me to spend more time learning about the important role of the judiciary.

Bridget Prentice: I missed the last half of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that he is not suggesting that we should tag hon. Members so that we know where they are. As a fellow of the Industry and Parliament Trust, I recognise how important such schemes are in giving Members of Parliament an opportunity to understand what is happening in terms of other aspects of our country. To further his knowledge, he might like to sit in on his local court and see what happens there. He could also visit the partnerships in his local authority and discover what crime reduction schemes are in place. I recommend sitting in on his local magistrates court for a day as a good way of learning exactly what happens there.

Small Claims

Vincent Cable: What assessment she has made of the administrative procedures for those recovering small claims following a court determination.

Bridget Prentice: The courts offer a range of effective enforcement methods, each tailored to dealing with different financial set-ups, without which it would be far easier for recalcitrant debtors to avoid their responsibilities to judgment creditors.

Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware that for people who achieve the feat of obtaining a small claims court ruling there is a major bureaucratic obstacle course involving four separate processes, in each of which there are up to three consecutive applications to the courts with form-filling? Can she get rid of some of that red tape?

Bridget Prentice: I understand the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, which he has also raised with my noble Friend Baroness Ashton, in respect of one of his constituents. We made improvements in enforcement methods in April 2002. The target recovery for 2005–06 is 85p in the pound, but we are actually recovering 93.8p in the pound, so those improvements are beginning to take effect. We continue to monitor the situation and have publicised further improvement proposals in the White Paper, "Effective Enforcement". Those changes need primary legislation and we shall ensure that it is brought forward when there is parliamentary time.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Pre-legislative Scrutiny

Graham Allen: If he will make it his policy to enable all Bills to undergo pre-legislative scrutiny.

Nigel Griffiths: We fully endorse the value of pre-legislative scrutiny. Since 1997, more than 50 Bills have been published in draft and 39 have been the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny. I am keen to ensure that as many Bills as possible benefit from that procedure where appropriate.

Graham Allen: Does the Minister agree that we make better law when Government and Parliament work together?

Nigel Griffiths: Yes, I do.

Nicholas Winterton: We were all taken aback by that brief and succinct, but positive, reply. I support the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). If we had more pre-legislative scrutiny, the nonsense of programming nowadays, whereby much legislation goes through without important parts being adequately debated either in Standing Committee or at remaining stages, would be removed, and the House would be a better place and legislation would be better for the people of this country.

Nigel Griffiths: Would that all right hon. and hon. Members shared the optimistic and progressive view of the hon. Gentleman, but the sad fact is that from looking at programme motions of one kind or another over a couple decades I do not consider that pre-legislative scrutiny or any other parliamentary mechanism for scrutiny would stop the inexorable trend for Oppositions to maximise the time for programme motions to complain that there is not enough time. However, I do not want to depart from the present all-party consensus; we support pre-legislative scrutiny and think it should be extended as far as is practical, but there are cases where it is not appropriate or practical.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Star Chamber Court

Norman Baker: What the final cost was of erecting the cover over the walkway in Star Chamber Court.

Nick Harvey: The final cost of designing, fabricating and erecting the cover over the walkway in Star Chamber Court was £435,000.

Norman Baker: That is a grotesque sum to spend on such a feature. Is my hon. Friend aware that while almost £500,000 was being thrown away on that absurdity the energy efficiency budget of the House has been cut by 40 per cent. since 1997 and electricity consumption has gone up by 45 per cent? Is not it time that he brought some sanity, common sense and clarity to the House of Commons Commission?

Nick Harvey: The House of Commons Accommodation and Works Committee approved the construction of the canopy in March 2004, after the estates directorates of the House had identified the need to cover the walkway along the east side of Star Chamber Court following the review of access and security arrangements for visitors to the Palace, which led to the plans for the new visitor reception area. The Parliamentary Works Services Directorate developed the brief and design for the canopy in consultation with English Heritage and Westminster city council under grade I listed building and world heritage site status. The requirements of those consultations led to the costs of the project working out at much more than originally anticipated.

Cyclists

Mary Creagh: If the Commission will take steps to improve the signage for cyclists on the House of Commons estate.

Nick Harvey: The Commission encourages cycling to and from the estate. I am happy to convey to the appropriate authorities any specific proposal that the hon. Lady may have, whether on signage or any other matter.

Mary Creagh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I have several suggestions to make about signage. First, there are absolutely no signs around the building warning unwitting cyclists that they should not park their bicycles against the railings. Many is the time that I have seen police officers removing with angle grinders three and five bicycles that have been left there. Will he perhaps take that back to his colleagues and discuss it? The problem—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One question is enough. Perhaps those matters might better be the subject of correspondence.

Nick Harvey: I am very happy to convey the burden of the hon. Lady's point to the relevant authorities, but increasing provision has been made for cycling spaces in various parts of the estate. Certainly, if there is evidence of further unsatisfied demand, further spaces will indeed be sought.

George Young: As president of the all-party parliamentary cycling group, I welcome the increased provision that is made on the estate, but I strongly endorse what the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has just said. Those cyclists who come to the Palace of Westminster to lobby their MPs find it very difficult to park anywhere nearby. Will the Commission improve the facilities for visiting cyclists who are trying to save the planet?

Nick Harvey: It has been concluded thus far that, for security reasons, we cannot let visitors cycle on to the estate, any more than we would allow people to drive in to park. For similar reasons, street cycle parking in the immediate area is not permitted, but visitors can use the cycle parking facilities on Millbank.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

European Legislation

Mark Lazarowicz: What plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the way in which EU business is scrutinised.

Nigel Griffiths: We intend to introduce proposals in response to the detailed report from the Modernisation Committee shortly.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that commitment, but he will know that it has been some years since the proposal for a major change in the scrutiny of EU legislation was first discussed by the House. It is accepted across the House and beyond that scrutinising EU legislation is not something that we do well, so can he give us a more specific indication of when the proposals will be made?

Nigel Griffiths: There have been ongoing discussions and changes in the way we scrutinise legislation in response to the sort of valid point that my hon. Friend makes, and we want to continue such improvements as quickly as is practical.

David Heath: The Leader of the House has been intending to introduce such changes for rather a long time now, and those ongoing discussions are apparently happening in the Cabinet, rather than with colleagues across the House, which is a misfortune. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether direct discussions were held with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—when we had such a creature—about part 3 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill? Quite obviously, there is no point in improving the legislative background to introducing EU legislation if we cannot improve the scrutiny by the House.

Nigel Griffiths: We have every intention of improving the scrutiny by the House. Indeed, the House has been divided on the issue. The European Scrutiny Committee, by the narrowest of margins, made a recommendation on which it changed its mind. That gave problems to the members of other Committees who were considering the issue. So it is not quite as simple as perhaps some hon. Members would make out, but there is the desire to ensure proper scrutiny. Many hon. Members are critical of the amount of legislation that must be passed, some of which is consequential on European legislation, and therefore there is good will on all sides to tackle the issue, but there is not yet an agreed solution. I hope that we will reach that shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Braithwaite Report

Martin Linton: When the Commission will reconsider the need for a review of the Braithwaite report on the administration of the House of Commons.

Nick Harvey: The Commission plans to consider the matter shortly.

Martin Linton: I am glad to hear that, but since the original Braithwaite report recommended in 1999 that there should be a review in five years' time and since seven years have now passed, does the hon. Gentleman not feel that it is high time that there was a review—unless, of course, he believes that the administration of the House could not be improved?

Nick Harvey: The Commission agreed a little over a year ago that, as we were at the end of a Parliament, which coincides with a certain turbulence for House departments, it was not the right moment to start. If we go ahead this year, that will be seven years after the Braithwaite review, which was itself eight years after the 1990 inquiry by Sir Robin Ibbs, so the intervals seem about right.

Smoking

Julie Morgan: What effects the Commission expects the new legislation on smoking will have on the House of Commons accommodation.

Nick Harvey: The Administration Committee has asked for a paper on that subject and the Commission expects to reconsider the policy on smoking on the House of Commons estate once recommendations have been received from that Committee.

Julie Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. I am sure that he welcomed the decision made by the House a couple of weeks ago about the ban to be introduced in most workplaces and public places. Does he not think that the House of Commons should take a lead and implement the proposals that we passed as quickly as possible, and that our role should be to lead the nation?

Nick Harvey: The hon. Lady will have heard the answer that I have just given: specific proposals will come from the Administration Committee. It is impossible for the Commission to make judgments on the matter until the exact form of the new legislation and regulations is clear, but those are the sort of issues that the Administration Committee will have the chance to think about. The estate—including the vast majority of the catering outlets—is already largely smoke-free, but I am sure that there is room to go further and we await   the recommendations of the Administration Committee.

Peter Bone: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that immediately after the smoking ban was passed in the House, Officers of the House visited Members' rooms to see whether people were smoking?

Nick Harvey: I have no knowledge of that.

BILL PRESENTED

Education and Inspections

Secretary Ruth Kelly, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Darling, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Secretary Tessa Jowell, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Hain, Mr. David Miliband, Mr. Secretary Hutton and Jacqui Smith, presented a Bill to make provision about primary, secondary and further education and about training; to make provision about food or drink provided on school premises or in connection with the provision of education or childcare; to provide for the establishment of an Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills and the appointment of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills and make provision about the functions of that Office and that Chief Inspector; to provide for the amendment of references to local education authorities and children's services authorities; to amend section 29 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 in relation to university bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 134].

Trespass with a Vehicle (Offences)

James Paice: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create an offence of criminal trespass with a vehicle; and for connected purposes.
	The House is familiar with the many issues surrounding the Traveller population and the local uproar that arises, particularly in rural areas, when a group of Travellers arrive with one or more caravans and set up home on land that they do not own. Such land may be owned by public authorities, most often the county council, or privately owned. Fences and gates can often be broken to gain access. While the Travellers remain, they frequently desecrate the surrounding area, cutting down fences and trees for fires and then leaving piles of rubbish and detritus, sometimes including human excrement. The costs of clearing it all up fall on the local taxpayer or the individual owner of the land.
	I am sure that I am not the only one to have had numerous cases of that in my constituency. Recently, in the small village of Swaffham Prior, Travellers camped on the village playing field, preventing the football club from using it and costing the parish council more than £4,000 the first time to clear up and £1,600 the second time in legal fees to get them evicted and to clear up. That is unacceptable. A direct consequence is that property owners, including local authorities, have to take action to prevent access. Large unsightly mounds of earth or rubble are put in gateways and farmers use redundant machinery to block access to their fields. Why should law-abiding people have to do those things?
	The House will be well aware that Cambridgeshire is particularly affected by unauthorised encampments. Some say that that is for historical reasons deriving from casual labour for fruit and vegetable harvesting, but a minimal number of Travellers, if any, are engaged in such activities today. A far more likely reason for the large number of Travellers in the county is that successive Government policies have created a honeypot effect. While the Government use half-yearly counts of unauthorised sites to indicate demand, it is inevitable that it can never be satisfied. The Travellers know that and therefore go to the areas where the problem is greatest, in full knowledge that the Government will then put pressure on the local council to provide more sites. Nowhere is that more obvious than in south Cambridgeshire. In the past two years, the number of unauthorised sites has risen by 63 per cent., yet the number of authorised sites has also risen. Last July, at the time of the last count, in the whole of the eastern region there were 325 unauthorised sites on land not owned by Gypsies.
	Before I go any further I want to make two specific points. First, most Members of the House know that the village of Cottenham is in my constituency. Unfortunately, it has received a considerable amount of unwelcome publicity over the past few years as the result of a substantial incursion by Irish Travellers. However, this Bill is not directed at that issue because those Travellers own the land, and the problems there are issues of planning and enforcement. The second point follows from that—namely, that not all Travellers cause the problems that I have described. Inevitably, there are generalisations, but illegal encampments, however tidy, must be stopped. In Cottenham, whatever the planning issues, the pitches are generally clean and tidy, although it has to be said that the surrounding area appears to suffer, and certainly a privately owned orchard has been destroyed.
	There have been a number of attempts by successive Governments to resolve those problems, some designed to help, some to hinder, but few, I am afraid, have made any difference. Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to drive a vehicle more than 15 yd from the highway on to private land without consent, yet there have been few, if any, prosecutions. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives police officers the power to move on Travellers if the landowner has asked them to leave, and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 slightly strengthened that legislation as a result of amendments that I tabled. Yet in the last three years there have been no prosecutions.
	It is clear to me that more must be done. In doing so, we should look at Ireland, which has addressed the problem robustly. In 2002, the Irish Government made trespass a criminal offence. The result for them was as expected: the problem reduced significantly. The result for us was unexpected—it led to a significant increase in the number of Irish Travellers in Britain. I quote from a letter that I received only this morning from an individual who had seen the publicity surrounding my presentation of the Bill:
	"My wife, who is of Irish descent, and myself often holiday in the Republic where the Irish people cannot believe their good fortune to be getting rid of their problem. There are thousands of these gypsies wanting to come to the UK".
	Even allowing for a little exaggeration, that underlines the problem as seen from the Irish perspective.
	My Bill does not go as far as the Irish legislation, which made all trespass a criminal offence. I seek only to make trespass with a vehicle a criminal offence if someone does not move on when told to do so by a constable. There can be no ifs or buts about this, and no spurious arguments about welfare—the people in question should have thought about that before they arrived at the site.
	My Bill also addresses other activities, not involving Travellers, where motor vehicles are used in trespass. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr.   Turner) has drawn my attention to serious problems on the Tennyson trail, where off-roaders have killed sheep and caused serious damage to the landscape. Similarly, vehicles are used to gain access to property for an illegal rave, yet the police frequently decline to act to prevent them.
	Quite rightly, many people will ask where the Travellers should go. There is a shortage of sites in some areas, and in my view their provision should be included in local plans, but that is not the point at issue here. I came to the House believing that we are all equal under the law. It is not acceptable for some sectors of society to be able to get away with activities which the rest of us could not; nor is it acceptable for owners of private land to have to spend several thousands of pounds obtaining eviction orders and clearing up the abominable mess that is left behind.
	I conclude with a reference to a Bill that is currently before the House. Through the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, the Government are, rightly, trying to prevent further damage to green lanes and byways by off-road vehicles. Why bother, if Travellers can continue to use them with impunity?
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Paice, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, David T. C. Davies, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Gregory Barker, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Mark Prisk, Andrew Selous, Mr. Andrew Turner and Bill Wiggin.

Trespass with a Vehicle (Offences)

Mr. James Paice accordingly presented a Bill to create an offence of criminal trespass with a vehicle; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 135].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Government of Wales Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

As amended in the Committee, further considered.

Clause 45
	 — 
	Welsh Assembly Government

David Mundell: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 27, line 32, leave out 'Assembly Government' and insert 'Executive'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in page 27, line 37, leave out 'Assembly Government' and insert 'Executive'.

David Mundell: The purpose of the amendments is to ensure a consistent approach to the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom. Such consistency has not been evident in much of the debate—we seem to have moved away from the idea that there should be a coherent approach to the devolved Administrations. In Spain, there is something that is often called "asymmetric devolution," whereby different parts of the country are governed in different ways, but I do not accept that difference is needed for difference's sake.
	In Scotland for the past six and a half years, the clear and accepted description of the Administration in the Scottish Parliament has been "the Scottish Executive." Were the equivalent body in Northern Ireland fully functioning, it would be called "the Northern Ireland Executive". It seems logical, coherent and beneficial to efforts to promote wider understanding of the functions of the devolved bodies that in Wales we replace the rather uncomfortable phrase, "Assembly Government" with "Executive."
	To have a coherent system throughout the United Kingdom, with a Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Executive and a Welsh Executive, would allow and promote better understanding of what the Executives do, compared with the Assembly or Parliaments. Indeed, it would also assist debates in this House, because hon. Members' references to "the Executive" would be clearer. A degree of coherence that has not previously been evident would be brought to the whole package if the amendments were made.
	As I am sure the Minister knows, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs thought that "Executive" was a better term than "Assembly Government". The arguments advanced within the Committee have merit, which should commend them to the Minister. I hope that the amendments will be regarded as non-contentious and that they will attract Government support.

Lembit �pik: Briefly, the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) has made a coherent case for the amendment, but I counsel him against building up his hopes, as the hallmark of this Government on naming things is inconsistency. He will recall the debate in which the Government opposed a proposal to call the Welsh Assembly the Welsh Senedd, because they were worried that the public would mix up the political institution with the building. We now have the Welsh Assembly in a Welsh Senedd building, which is typical of the fuzzy logic that we have come to expect on naming. Here is my tuppenny-worth: consistency is needed, but we should also accept that we are aiming to establish a Welsh Government.

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend will agree that it is important that the people of Wales should be able to distinguish between the Government and the Welsh Assembly. Too often, the Assembly has taken the blame for poor action by the Government. That contrasts with the golden age of Welsh devolution, in which a Liberal Democrat-led coalition delivered for Wales. The Labour Government, however, do not deliver for Wales.

Lembit �pik: My hon. Friend has made a brilliant and insightful point, which doubtless makes the Minister's skin crawl as he remembers paradise lost and the brief halcyon era of the Welsh Assembly in which the Liberal Democrats led the way and ensured the only period of stability during the Assembly administration. He makes an important point, too, about the need to distinguish between the Government of Wales and the Assembly as an institution.
	In conclusion, the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale rightly pointed out that that can be achieved with his wording, but I would prefer the whole thing to be called the Senedd. On   balance, I prefer the word Government to Executive.

Adam Price: This is a modest demand, and a perfect opportunity for the Government to concede one amendment to the Opposition parties. We are only talking about a name changeit does not change the concrete constitutional settlement one iota, so I hope that the Under-Secretary will find it in his heart to offer us some charity. Names are importantwe know that is the case in Wales, which has a logocentric culturebecause they are part of the means by which people understand their political institutions. The separation of powers is one of the most important principles in the democratic tradition, and it has been enshrined belatedly but happily in the new settlement.
	The problem is terminological inexactitude, which was cobbled together[Hon. Members: Oh!]. All without notes, I hasten to add. An informal arrangement was cobbled together in about 2000, but it is now being formalised, unfortunately. The phrase is inelegant, infelicitous and inaccurate, and it does not allow us to clarify for the Welsh electorate where political responsibility lies. There is an important principle at the heart of accountability. The National Assembly for Wales includes all the parties that are represented, and its Government includes the party[Interruption.] I am reminded that it includes more than one party in coalition. We therefore require clarity on the issue.
	I am all for constitutional innovation, but I could find only one other example of a national assembly Government in history. The Turkish republic had two Governments at one timean Ottoman Government in Istanbul and a national assembly Government in Ankara under Kemal Atatrk. That was a difficult period in Turkish history, and it is the one example in history of something like a national assembly Government. It is a misnomer and we should take the opportunity offered by the Bill to bury it. We do not have a United Kingdom Parliament Government. We do not have a Scottish Parliament Government. Why should we be left with the strange phrase, Welsh Assembly Government? It mystifies most of us, it will certainly mystify the Welsh electorate, and the Minister should accept this not unreasonable demand from the Opposition parties.

Nick Ainger: I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and by the Welsh Affairs Committee in its report on the Bill. However, the Government do not agree that using the title Welsh Assembly Government will perpetuate confusion over the different roles of the Executive and the Legislature. Rather, changing the title at this stage is likely to cause even more confusion than keeping the names with which people are already familiar. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) said, the name has been in place for five or six years. People understand what the Welsh Assembly Government is, and a change to another name would cause confusion.

Hywel Williams: May I ask a common-sense question? Does not the Minister find the acronym WAG a little silly?

Nick Ainger: No, I do not, and nobody burst out laughing when the hon. Gentleman mentioned it.
	Hon. Members referred to the Scottish Executive. In Scotland, the term Scottish Executive has been used since devolution and it is now familiar and well understood, but the Government do not believe that that is a reason for changing a term that is now familiar in Wales. I see no problem. It has been argued that there is confusion between the Assembly and the Government. The term Welsh Assembly Government provides clarity. It is not a terminological inexactitude, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr suggested. It is quite clear. We have no intention of changing the name, so I ask the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale to withdraw his amendment.

David Mundell: I am disappointed by the Minister's response to a reasonable suggestion. Earlier in our consideration of the Bill we were told that it was designed to set the framework for a generation, so it would have been worth taking the opportunity to add a much clearer definition of the roles of our devolved institutions within the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) made a valid point. One of the great challenges of the devolved arrangements is the attempt, particularly under Labour stewardship, to tie in the institution with the Government, and to channel towards the institution any form of public dissatisfaction with the Government. With respect to public services, it is not necessarily the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Assembly that is not delivering, but the Administrations within those institutions, and we need to work further

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Labour Welsh Assembly Government introduced the distinction between the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly for Wales?

David Mundell: The Labour Welsh Assembly Government had to take a degree of responsibility for their actions. Both the Scottish and Welsh institutions are governed by majority decisions, rather than by communal decisions of the entire body. The Welsh Affairs Committee has recognised that the addition of the word Executive would provide the new UK devolved settlement with a degree of coherence, so the Minister's argument is unsatisfactory. I will not divide the House on this issue.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman was right to table the amendment. The point made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who has unfortunately left the Chamberno doubt he was blown away by the force of the hon. Gentleman's argumentunderlines how important it is that we never again get into a situation in which an entire institution carries the blame for the errors of the Government of the day.

David Mundell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the Minister had been willing to accept the amendment, common sense would have prevailed. Sadly, that is not the case, but I am glad that we have had the opportunity to put the issue on the record.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51
	  
	Limit on number of ministers

David Mundell: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 30, line 25, leave out clause 51.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6Limit on number of Ministers (No. 2)
	'(1)   Not more than eight persons are to hold the office of Welsh Minister appointed under section 48 at any time.
	(2)   Not more than three person are to hold the office of Deputy Welsh Minister at any time.'.

David Mundell: The amendment and the new clause are designed to engender a debate about the appropriate number of Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government and the difference between full Ministers and Deputy Ministers. We also need to consider how many Assembly Members are not members of the Welsh Assembly Government. If the Assembly contains 12 Ministers, the First Minister and Presiding Officers, then the number of Members available to carry out non-governmental functions in the Assembly is reduced. We must be confident that the number of Members who do not hold Government office is sufficient to scrutinise the work of the Assembly Government.
	No such limit was stipulated in the Scotland Act 1998, and it is clear from experience in Scotland that following the arrival of an institution the number of Ministers can grow exponentially. Scotland had five Ministers under the Conservative Government, but it now has 22 Ministers performing the same functionsat a significantly greater cost.
	Irrespective of whether one argues in favour of devolution, it cannot be argued that more people doing the same thing is a successful form of it. We must instead focus on whether the proposed number of Ministers is appropriate in light of the value that they bring to the role and the ability of the Assembly's Committees to function satisfactorily. The ability of Committees to function with a number of non-governmental or Presiding Officer Members would leave in the mid-40s the number of Members who are available for Committee work. The provision does not differentiate the role of Minister from that of Deputy Minister, so we could end up with 12 fully paid Ministers.
	Throughout the debate, there has been inconsistency about what should be in the Assembly's Standing Orders and what should be in the Bill. We must be clear about whether the Assembly should determine through its own procedures how many Ministers it has. If we are going to determine the number, we must ensure that the ministerial cohort is effective. There is no point in having 12 Ministers simply because the Bill says that there can be that number.
	We also need to clarify whether the proposed arrangements are thought of purely in the context of part 3 arrangements. If part 4 arrangements were to come into being, would the number stay the same or need to be revised?
	In Committee, there was considerable debate about an amendment that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) tabled and how many Assembly Members were needed to make the Assembly function more effectively, especially in the context of the part 4 powers. Although the amendment was not successful, it is important to focus on the right number of Members for an effective Assembly Chamber.
	The Government have already changed their minds about the Scottish Parliament. In the Scotland Act, the Government's initial policy was to link the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament directly with that of Westminster Members of Parliament representing Scotland. I fear that the Government's guiding principle in constitutional mattersexpediencyprevailed and the link was broken. The Scottish Parliament will continue to have 129 Members, who no longer relate to the constituencies of Scottish Members of this House. At least that decision led to the Arbuthnott report, about which we have heard much, and has been useful for the debate on the Bill. Indeed, the Arbuthnott report has been discussed more here, in the context of the measure, than in the Scottish Parliament or by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
	A difficult position has been created whereby there is no link between Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament. That problem would clearly arise in the Welsh Assembly if there were to be more Assembly Members. It is therefore especially interesting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said, that Labour Members appear to be completely unwilling to discuss appropriate numbers, should the part 4 provisions come into force.
	It is appropriate to encourage debate on the appropriate number of Assembly Members to allow the Assembly to function with a Government of the size that the Government propose or in accordance with our amendment. I hope that our amendments will facilitate the debate.

Hywel Williams: We welcome the definition for Deputy Ministersit is a fair step forward. I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) about Committees. We must take careI believe that the Government in Cardiff will take carethat there are enough Back Benchers to ensure sufficient numbers on Committees. The number of Assembly Members imposes its own limit, given that there are only 60.
	We do not want to fetter the First Minister in the way in which heor even shemight want to appoint Ministers.
	The Record of Proceedings for the Assembly's Committee that considered the Bill shows that the Tories in Cardiff tabled an amendment, which would have provided:
	The number of Welsh Ministers shall not exceed 8 and the number of Deputy Welsh Ministers shall not exceed 5.
	Perhaps the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale could explain the reason for that change.

David Davies: I should like to speak in support of the amendment. As a Member of the Welsh Assembly, I was quite perturbed when the Labour Administration announced that they were creating a new post of Deputy Minister. Such people would appear to want to have their cake and eat it, because in addition to standing in and answering questions for Ministers who are away, they will be able to put on their Back-Bench hat and start asking questions themselves. That would not happen in this Chamber. I have also noticed that, as well as claiming to be Ministers in their own right, they will be able to sit on Committees as Back-Bench Assembly Members.
	There is a great deal of confusion about the constitutional role of a Deputy Minister, and it has even been suggested that the position is simply a means for the Labour party to shore up a bit of support on its Back Benches by handing out a bauble that some people might find enough to assure their loyalty. Of course, I would never suggest such a thing, but I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for clarity on the constitutional role of a Deputy Minister and for a firm upper limit on the numbers involved, so that the posts cannot simply be handed out as a way of shoring up Back-Bench support for the Administration.

Lembit �pik: The problem here is not the concept of Deputy Ministers or the number of them that a First Minister might want to appoint. The problem is that the Assembly is not big enough to cope with the job that it has been given. The Liberal Democrats have proposed to increase the number of Assembly Members in order to get round the difficulties that we are discussing.

David Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon. Surely he can see that the job of running Wales, which was previously being done by three Ministers in the Wales Office, is now being done by 60 politicians. How many extra Assembly Members does the hon. Gentleman want?

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman forgets that, aside from doing the work of three Ministers in the Wales Office, the Assembly has also taken on the various responsibilities that used to be undertaken by the 40 Members of Parliament who now quite rightly observe the delegation of those responsibilities to the Welsh Assembly.

David Davies: I hesitate to say this to the hon. Gentleman in public, but he is simply not correct. The role that the Assembly plays now is exactly the same as the role that was previously played by the Wales Office. The Wales Office was previously responsible for health, education, transport and so on, and those powers have now transferred to the Welsh Assembly. We went from having three Members of Parliament performing all those functions to having 60 Welsh Assembly Members doing so. I repeat my original question: how many more does the hon. Gentleman want

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps this is the appropriate moment to remind the House that we are talking about Ministers rather than Members of the Assembly.

Lembit �pik: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I set that hare running myself. If I may, I shall just give the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) one sentence in response before getting back to the subject of the amendments. I want to remind him that Welsh Assembly Members have responsibilities that were not formerly held by Ministers in the Wales Office. I shall be happy to discuss this with him outside the Chamber; perhaps he overestimates the amount that Ministers did before the Welsh Assembly was set up.
	There are insufficient Assembly Members, so we are now having artificially to protect the Committee structure. In some ways, that is an unavoidable consequence of the size of the Assembly. Furthermore, if the Deputy Ministers operate sometimes as stand-in Ministers and sometimes as Back Benchers, it will achieve exactly what we have tried to avoid, which is to blur the distinction between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Welsh Assembly as an institution in itself. Will the Minister explain what firewalls will exist, both psychologically and morally, for someone who can run with the fox and run with the houndssomeone who is occasionally part of the Welsh Assembly Government and who at other times freelances as a Back Bencher?

David Jones: Is there not more to it than that? Deputy Ministers will be remunerated. Does the hon. Gentleman not share my concern about the fact that what the Welsh Affairs Committee dubbed the payroll vote will account for 20 per cent. of the Assembly? Does he not find that unacceptable?

Lembit �pik: In proportional terms it is not very different from what happens here in Westminster, so I am not as concerned as the hon. Gentleman on that score. However, it is rather ridiculous for Deputy Ministers to be paid to be part of the payroll vote, while at the same being allowed to act as Back Benchers. If all those positions are taken up, we shall have an enormous, overbearing, burgeoning administrative, and rather centralist, Welsh Assembly. How can the Minister justify an arrangement that seems to muddy the waters between Back Benchers and payroll, which, as other Members have said, we would simply not tolerate in the House of Commons?

Nick Ainger: I am conscious of your suggestion that we concentrate on the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will do so, but I want to say a little about Members' comments on whether there will be enough Assembly Members to scrutinise and hold the Assembly Government to account. I also want to say something about the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) about the role of Deputy Minister.
	Welsh Members will know what the Presiding Officer, in particular, has said about what will happen after the enactment of part 3 and, possibly, part 4, and about the need for Assembly Members' roles to take account of the additional work that they will be required to do. The Presiding Officer has said that the Assembly should sit for four days a week rather than two. I think that that will cover the extra work load, and will go a long way towards meeting the understandable concerns of many Members about whether 60 Assembly Members will be able to perform the scrutiny role.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Ainger: May I first answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire about the role of Deputy Ministers? I understand his point, especially in the context of the clear split between Executive and legislature. I would expect the definition in Standing Orders to apply to Deputy Ministers, and given that Deputy Ministers will clearly be part of the Executive, I would not expect them to have the same role as an ordinary Back-Bench Assembly Member; but that is a matter for the Standing Orders.

Lembit �pik: I apologise to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who is still waiting to intervene.
	I fear that if what the Minister says is correct, we shall not have enough Assembly Members to fill the Committees. I assumed that the schizophrenic role of Back Bencher-cum-Deputy Minister had been created because that seemed to be the only way of ensuring that the Committee structure was fully stocked with Assembly Members. Is that not the case?

Nick Ainger: Not necessarily. As I have said, if the Assembly sat for four days a week rather than two, that would probably take account of the fact that four additional Members would no longer be available to sit on Committees.

Cheryl Gillan: As the Minister says, discussions have turned on the proposal for the Assembly to sit for four days a week rather than two. What discussions has he had about remuneration for Assembly Members and Ministers? Does he expect their salaries to increase in line with their increased work loads, or to remain the same?

Nick Ainger: Fortunately, that issue is way above my pay grade; it is clearly one for the Senior Salaries Review Body, as is our own remuneration.

David Davies: The Minister is talking a lot of sense in proposing to increase the time that the Assembly sits from seven hours a week to four full days, but as Assembly Members have repeatedly said, they already work very hard when they are not there. So there is surely no need to increase their remuneration, because they will not be doing extra work; they will simply be spending more time in the Assembly.

Nick Ainger: As I said, this issue is way above my pay grade and I am not going to get involved in any discussion about Assembly Members' salaries.
	Let us move on the amendments before us. It is important to the Assembly's effective functioning that there be a limit on the size of the payroll vote, so clause 51 sets a statutory limit on the size of theGovernment within the Assembly. The limit prescribeda combined total of no more than 12 Welsh Ministers and Deputy Welsh Ministersis consistent with the current arrangement. It seems to work now and I see no reason why it should not work post-May 2007.

David Jones: Does the Minister really think it right that, on that basis, 40 per cent. of the Labour party should be on the payroll?

Nick Ainger: The issue is not what percentage of the governing party is in government, but what percentage of the whole Assembly is in government. A considerable percentage of the Labour party is in government in this place, but the issue is the proportion of Parliament that is in government. I shall return to this point in due course.
	Currently, there are eight Cabinet Ministers in the Assembly, in addition to the First Minister, and four Deputy Ministers. On comparing that figure with the UK Parliament, it is clear that it is not disproportionate. There are 90 Ministers, including Whips, and 51 Parliamentary Private Secretaries in the House of Commons21.8 per cent. of its total membership. Our proposed limit for the Assembly, taken with the First Minister and the Counsel General, represents 23.3 per cent. of total Assembly membership if the Counsel General is also an Assembly Member, or 21.7 per cent. if he or she is not. So the proportion is very similar to that in this place.
	In the light of that and of the Presiding Officer's suggestionit is supported by the First Ministerthat the Assembly sit post-May 2007 for considerably longer, there should be no problem with scrutiny. However, it is not necessary to limit the First Minister's discretion concerning the balance of Ministers and Deputy Ministers, as the amendment proposes. Should the Assembly have any concerns about the size of the pay bill, it will have powers over Welsh Ministers' and Deputy Welsh Ministers' salaries by virtue of clause 53. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

David Mundell: As I made clear to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) during my initial remarks, our probing amendment is designed to allow the sort of discussion that has indeed taken place, and which has proved very helpful. Although we have strayed into discussing what constitutes the appropriate number of Assembly Members, that issue will require further consideration. However, I take on board the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), about the benefit of the Welsh Assembly's working longer hours. Inevitably, the range of Committee activities will put disproportionate work loads on particular Members, although a rough calculation suggests that they are more likely to be Labour Back Benchers at this stage.
	It is important that the Deputy Minister role is clarified in the Standing Order process. The Scottish Parliament has provided the model for much of the discussion on this Bill, and Deputy Ministers there are not able to serve on Committees or ask questions in the Chamber. People understand that Deputy Ministers are part of the Executiveor, in the Wales context, of the Welsh Assembly Government. The debate has made it clear that combining the two roles is unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Standing Orders will deal with the problem and clarify the position of Deputy Ministers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) noted, the office attracts a payment. The duties and responsibilities that go with that should mean that office holders are not able to move from being a member of the Government to being a Back Bencher as and when required.
	I shall not press the amendment to a Division, as the House has been able to raise the relevant issues. People are worried about the percentage of members of institutions such as this Parliament or the Welsh Assembly who are on the payroll votethat is, the number of Ministers who are needed for effective Government. The Opposition believe that we should always strive to ensure that the number is the smallest possible. In the hope that the numbers set out in the Bill do not become the norm but will be assessed in the context of ministerial duties, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60
	  
	Promotion etc. of well-being

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 35, line 27, leave out clause 60.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 64, in page 35, line 28, after 'anything', insert 'within their powers'.
	No. 65, in page 38, line 19, leave out clause 70.
	No. 66, in clause 70, page 38, line 22, , at end insert 'reasonable'.

Cheryl Gillan: I hope that my voice will be more robust today than yesterday, and that the House will bear with me if I start to fade again.
	The amendments are designed to examine clauses 60 and 70. Unfortunately, we did not have time to discuss these clauses in Committee, but their selection for debate on Report gives us an opportunity to get inside the minds of the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen and find out exactly what the provisions mean. This debate also allows us to explore the ambit of the subjects that the clauses cover.
	I have looked at the explanatory notes to the Bill, and what they say is worth sharing with the House. Clause 60, which covers Promotion etc. of well-being, is described as follows:
	This clause provides the Welsh Ministers with a power to do anything which they consider is appropriate to achieve the promotion of the economic, social or environmental well-being of Wales. The power may be exercised for the benefit of the whole or any part of Wales or of all or any persons resident or present in Wales. If the Welsh Ministers consider that it would promote the economic, social or environmental well-being of Wales it may also be exercised in relation to or for the benefit of areas outside Wales or persons resident or present in any area outside Wales.
	I have to express a little surprise, as I am sure the Minister will understand, because that is so badly drafted that it needs close examination.
	The clause begins:
	The Welsh Ministers may do anything,
	and I would like the Minister to define anything, because Ministers may do anything at all that they consider appropriate, without any qualification. They are to be the sole arbiters and have sole judgment. They can do anything whatevernot anything within their powers; there is no such qualification
	which they consider appropriate to achieve any one or more of the following objects
	(a)   the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of Wales.
	I challenge the Minister to give me some examples of the sort of thing that he thinks Welsh Ministers may do to improve the economic well-being of Wales, and why they need that all-encompassing power. Paragraph (b) mentions the social well-being of Wales. How does the Minister define that? Is it something that would make Assembly Members happy? Is that an appropriate objective? What is social well-being in the context of
	the whole or any part of Wales?
	Next, can the Minister define the term
	the environmental well-being of Wales?
	For example, there is some debate over the nuclear power station at Wylfa B, the jobs there, and the accompanying aluminium plant. Rightly, those subjects have been raised in the House and are of concern to Members. What might Welsh Ministers do in relation to that plant to improve or promote the environmental well-being of Wales? Subsection (1) is very broadly drawn.
	Subsection (2) talks about anything that benefits
	the whole or any part of Wales, or . . . all or any persons resident or present in Wales.
	I presume that that includes any visiting non-British people, and people coming across the border from England, or from Scotland. Where is the containment of the power? Where does the judgment lie? It lies back with Welsh Ministers, who can decide to do anything that they consider appropriate, without let, bar or hindrance.
	Subsection (2) raises many questions in my mind, but if that were not broad enough, subsection (3) would begin to require some serious answers from the Under-Secretary, because it gives Welsh Ministers a
	power to do anything in relation to or for the benefit of any area outside Wales, or all or any persons resident or present anywhere outside Wales.
	As I read it, that means that Welsh Ministers can do anything that they consider appropriate, with nobody else sitting in judgment on them, for any area or any countryeven Ukraine, whose parliamentary system was prayed in aid in earlier debates, or anywhere else in the whole world. How does that sit with the devolved powers and the powers in schedule 5? This section appears to give Ministers the power to do anything for anybody, anywhere, at any time, and the only people sitting in judgment on that are themselves. Ministers have to consider whether their actions are likely to achieve one or more of the objects in clause 60(1), but that section is also at the discretion of Ministers.
	Clause 60(4) starts to describe the powers, but it is so broadly drafted that it provides an open mandate. Ministers can
	enter into arrangements or agreements with any person.
	That makes them competent to do anything that they decide is in promotion or improvement of the three areas that we have discussed. Ministers may also
	co-operate with, or facilitate, or co-ordinate the activities of, any person.
	Is that provision within the devolved powers in schedule 5, or is the clause drafted more broadly?
	Ministers may also
	exercise on behalf of any person any functions of that person.
	I hope that they will not be able to exercise any of my functions on my behalf. We need an explanation of who are those persons, what sort of functions will they be exercising[Interruption.] The Whip says, from a sedentary position, that I am rambling.

Kevin Brennan: I said, It's the Ram doctrine.

Cheryl Gillan: I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that I was rambling. My lip-reading skills are obviously not as good as they used to be. I am rambling slightly, because I am perplexed by this clause.
	I call clause 60(d) the sleaze subsection, because it says that any Welsh Minister may do anything that they consider appropriate to further the aims in clause 60(1) by providing
	staff, goods, services or accommodation to any person.
	Perhaps Welsh Ministers could provide me with a few staff. The Opposition can always do with staff, because support is thin on the ground for Opposition Members. The staff we have are very able, but perhaps I could apply to Welsh Ministers for more staff, or goods and services, or even accommodation when I visit Wales, because it would appear that such provision is within the ambit of clause 60.
	Clause 70 is about money. It would give Ministers similar wide powers and I need a decent explanation of it from the Minister. The explanatory notes state:
	This clause gives the First Minister, the Welsh Ministers and the Counsel General the power to give financial assistance (whether by grant, loan or guarantee) to any person engaged in any activity which the Welsh Ministers consider will secure, or help to secure, the attainment of any objective which they aim to achieve in the exercise of their functions. Conditions may be attached to such assistance.
	As if it is not sufficient that under clause 60 Ministers may do anything for anybody who is, in their judgment, furthering the aims in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c), they can also give money, by way of a grant, loan or guarantee, to anybody, anywhere, who is engaged in any activity that
	Welsh Ministers consider will secure, or help to secure, the attainment of any objective which they aim to attain in the exercise of any of their functions.
	So clause 70 is not even confined to the aims and objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of clause 60.
	Would the provisions cover the granting of mortgages to members of staff? Subsection (2) of clause 70 notes that
	conditions . . . may be attached . . . requiring the repayment of the whole or any part.
	It thus appears that Welsh Ministers could decide to be the mortgagors of their own houses or the houses of their staff. They could offer grants to businesses coming to Walesindeed, any assistance whatever. How will the provisions sit with European legislation on offering grants? Under the Bill, anything that a Minister wanted to do in exercise of his or her functions could be accompanied by giving financial assistance to third parties.
	Subsection (3) also requires explanation. It states:
	This section applies in relation to the First Minister and the Counsel General as in relation to the Welsh Ministers.
	We have already debated the Counsel General and as I understand it that individual need not be an elected Member of the Assemblyanyone at all could be appointedyet if the section applies to the Counsel General, that person can give
	financial assistance . . . to any person engaged in any activity which the Welsh Ministers consider will secure, or help to secure, the attainment of any objective which they aim to attain in the exercise of any of their functions.
	It seems rather strange that the Counsel General, who is not elected, will have power to dispose of taxpayers' money. Why is the Counsel General included in subsection (3)?
	I presume that the words
	This section applies in relation to the First Minister . . . as in relation to the Welsh Ministers
	mean that the First Minister will be able to make similar decisions in relation to Welsh Ministers. If a Welsh Minister required a residence to further his aims, would the First Minister be able to provide the funding from taxpayers' money, perhaps on advantageous terms? We do not know what conditions would be attached, under subsection (2), to the repayment of any moneys paid out by the First Minister. Will it be a slush fund that allows anybody to have access to any money at any time to do anything that they want?
	I could be wrong and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's interpretation of those two clauses, but as they stand, they would pass to the Assembly Government, to Ministers and to a possibly non-elected Counsel General, broad and sweeping powers with no let, stay or hindrance.
	I have tabled two small and reasonable amendments and if, after I have listened to the Minister, I am not satisfied, I may want to vote on them. On page 35, at line 38 of clause 60, I propose the insertion of the words within their powers, to act as a limit or brake on the provisions. Likewise in clause 70, I propose including the word reasonable, because a test of reasonableness is needed on the wide powers granted under clauses 60 and 70.
	I am sad that we did not have time to explore those matters in Committee, but I am grateful that we have been able to do so on Report. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say about the two clauses.

Nick Ainger: Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. I will try to respond to all the points that she made, but first I should give a clear explanation of clauses 60, 70 and 71. Clause 60, on the promotion of well-being, has been included so that, together with clauses 70 and 71, Welsh Ministers will have available to them the wide general powers that UK Ministers have inherently as Ministers of the Crown. That is known as the Ram doctrine, which was established, if my memory serves me right, on 2 November 1945.
	Given the nature of the Welsh devolution settlement, we believe that those clauses are the best way to give Welsh Ministers comparable general powers within their responsibilities. That will remove the uncertainty that relates to section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. The provisions will empower the Welsh Assembly Government to pursue a range of actions for which there is no specific statutory power.
	The hon. Lady asked for certain examples of how such powers will be exercised. They could include, for example, taking action to promote sustainable development and joint working with other public bodies to improve public services. She asked about the environment, and the powers could include taking action to promote energy efficiency in Wales. Another example is collaborating with other bodies, especially in the public sector, whose functions are not devolvedfor example, supporting the police in tackling drug-related issues. Hon. Members have raised such issues on a number of occasions at Welsh questions.
	A further example is providing appropriate information to prosecutorsthis perhaps relates to the hon. Lady's question about the Counsel Generaland regulatory bodies to assist them in considering whether to bringing cases to court. Another example is disseminating information that is of benefit to the public sector or the wider publicfor example, joining in a recent campaign on responding to civil emergencies. Those are examples where Ministers do not have the power to intervene to take executive action, but those issues are in line with the responsibilities of UK Ministers. Section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 gives Welsh Ministers certain powers, but these clauses will clarify their roles.
	The hon. Lady asked about clause 70 and whether European law would apply to the issuing of grants, state aid and so on.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister has given some examples, but what limits will be placed on those powers?

Nick Ainger: First, there is a limit in that every bit of expenditure will be subject to the Audit Committee. The hon. Lady suggested that Ministers could offer mortgages to members of staff. Clearly, they would not be allowed to do that: the Audit Committee would jump most heavily on a Minister if such action was considered.

Cheryl Gillan: rose

Nick Ainger: I shall come to the limits of the word anything, but I was responding to the question that the hon. Lady asked about European law. Clause 70 is subject to Community law rules on non-discrimination and the free movement of goods and services, so any action by a Welsh Minister will be constrained by Community law in that respect.
	The hon. Lady asked about limitations on the power of well-being. Other limits are already set out in the Billfor example, on human rights in clause 80, on Community law in clause 79 and on international obligations in clause 81.

David Jones: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was expressing the concern that, on the face of it, these powers could exceed the powers that are conferred in relation to matters and fields that are devolved to Assembly Ministers. The Minister has already said that the powers would enable Assembly Ministers to exercise such functions within the area of their responsibility. However, that phrase does not appear in the Bill. Could the matter not be simply resolved and clarified by adopting the wording that my hon. Friend suggests or that the Minister himself has just used?

Nick Ainger: I used that phrase because the Minister for Economic Development and Transport might, for example, want to start giving grant aid to a theatre company that wanted to tour in Europe. That is certainly a distinct possibility and it would be good to promote Wales in that way. The Welsh National Opera already does that. That is why I used the phrase within their responsibilities. However, as in the case of UK Ministers, Assembly Ministers are not necessarily creatures of statute. They occasionally have to take Executive action that is outwith any legislative provision that they have. That is why we need the clauses in relation to well-being. This is not an unusual way of doing things. The Local Government Act 2000 already gives powers to local authorities to take action and expend money for the benefit and well-being of the people they serve.

David Jones: Does the Minister recognise that the clause could give Assembly Ministers powers to exceed the powers that they already have by virtue of the devolution settlement? My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) expressed that concern, but the Minister has not adequately addressed it.

Nick Ainger: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not feel that I have responded to him. All that we are trying to do with the clauses is provide the same powers that already exist in this place. Members do not complain about the additional powers that UK Ministers can exercise, even though Ministers have not got the right, by statute, to exercise those powers. I referred to the Ram doctrine earlier and although I will not bore the House by going through it, it gives a Minister the ability to exercise power when he feels that it is necessary, as long as he remains accountable to Parliament for those actions. Ministers in the Welsh Assembly will remain fully accountable to the Assembly for all their actions and any money that they expend, in exactly the same way in which UK Ministers are accountable to Parliament now.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister tell me whether the provisions were included in the original Government of Wales Act 1998 and, if so, whether they were in exactly this form?

Nick Ainger: The provisions were not in exactly this form, but we are putting them in this form because we are trying to clarify exactly what Ministers can do and what the limits are.
	The hon. Lady also asked about a Minister's ability to act outside Wales. I touched on a good example. If the Welsh National Opera was doing a major tour of Europe that could be used to promote Wales and help economic development and tourism, the relevant Minister could subsidise part of that tour as a way of promoting well-being in Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; at least we are having a dialogue on the matter. If Ministers are going to act within the provisions of schedule 5 and the devolved powers, why does it not say that in the Bill? Why is the Minister, at this stage, giving Assembly Ministers the same level and breadth of powers as full Ministers in the UK? Surely this is another example of the devolution settlement being breached and broadened without people appreciating it.

Nick Ainger: No, to return to the point that I made earlier, section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 already gives similar powers, but these clauses clarify the situation so that there is no confusion. Following advice, we believe that clarification in this form is necessary.
	The hon. Lady was asking about Ministers' ability to exercise powers. These are executive functions to be exercised by Ministers and they will be subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly and, certainly, if any funding is involved, to the scrutiny of the Audit Committee.

David Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way. Will he turn his mind to clause 60(4)(c), which gives Welsh Ministers power to exercise any function
	on behalf of any person?
	Would that give a Welsh Minister the power to exercise a function given to him on an agency basis by a UK Minister, for example?

Nick Ainger: The well-being power is there to assist the people of Wales. Clause 60(1) sets out the objects to which that power applies. The answer is yes, if it could be shown that an individual outside Wales could perform a duty that was to the benefit and for the well-being of people in Wales, that would not be outwith the clause.
	The power to promote well-being is closely modelled on similar powers given to local authorities in section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. Local authorities, too, were given that power to reduce uncertainty over their powers to act where there was no specific power relevant to what they wanted to do even though it would benefit people in their area. A similar provision was included in section 30 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, for similar reasons. The power would not alter any existing function of Ministers of the Crown, and there are specific constraints on Welsh Ministers, such as the prohibition on doing anything incompatible with Community law, so those functions do not need to be restated. The power would not override the International Development Act 2002.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister appears to have made two conflicting statements. I think that I am correct in saying that, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), he said that under these clauses it will be possible for a Welsh Minister to exercise the functions of a UK Minister. However, he has just said that this provision does not alter the position of a Minister of the Crown. Perhaps I do not understand, but the two statements appear to be conflicting and I should be grateful for clarification.

Nick Ainger: To clarify the point, I am certainly not suggesting that a Minister would be able suddenly to take on the functions of a UK Minister. I am suggesting that, if a UK Minister were in a position to assist the good people of Wales, and there was a requirement for funds to be provided, that would be possible under these clauses.
	The amendments seek to remove or constrain the power to promote or improve the well-being of Wales to such an extent that it would become meaningless. It would create uncertainty over the powers of Welsh Ministers to act where there was no specific power relevant to what they wanted to do, even though it would be for the benefit of the people of their area. For the reasons that I have outlined, we believe that the power is necessary, as it has been for local government and the Greater London Authority.
	Amendment No. 65 would remove clause 70, which would make no sense. The power already exists for the Assembly in section 85 of the Government of Wales Act, and is being transferred to Welsh Ministers by the Bill. The removal of the clause would restrict the ability of Welsh Ministers to carry out executive functions.
	Amendment No. 66 is unnecessary. The power in the clause is identical to one in section 40 of the Government of Wales Act. Although the provision is for the Assembly as a whole, the function in question is an Executive function, which is better carried out by Welsh Ministers. Welsh Ministers are accountable for their actions. If their actions were deemed unreasonable, they would be subject to action by the Assembly or by the Audit Committee, and potentially to judicial review.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister deal with my question about the Counsel General, please?

Nick Ainger: I think that I touched on that. The Counsel General would be in a position to expend moneys to ensure that prosecutions took place, and I specifically mentioned that he could take action to assist other authorities in bringing prosecutions. Although he would not be given specific powers under schedule 5 or following the enactment of part 4, the Counsel General would be able to assist other authorities in bringing prosecutions; at present, no statute gives him the power to do that.
	We have had a good explanation. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that the powers are not, as she suspects, huge and wide-ranging, unrestricted either by statute or by the Assembly. Far from it. We are making sensible arrangements so that Welsh Ministers can exercise Executive functions to benefit the people of Wales. I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: I understand why, from time to time, Ministerswhether in Westminster or in the Assemblyneed to exercise Executive powers, but I am not fully satisfied by the explanation that the Minister has given. A lot of points still need to be clarified, and it is unfortunate that we will not be able to do that at this stage. The fact that the clauses are closely modelled on provisions for the Greater London Authority and local authorities has little bearing, because, as we have often heard, the Assembly in Wales is different from the Greater London Authority and local authorities. If there are similarities, one would hope for consistency across government and that Ministers would apply the changes that they intend to make to the electoral system in Wales to the electoral arrangements for the GLA and the Scottish Parliament.
	The way in which the Minister has presented his explanation has led to confusion. I am not entirely convinced that under the clauses as drafted it would not be possible for a Minister to take on the functions of a Member of this House or a member of the Government on an agency basis. His assurance that the clauses clarify and limit what Ministers can and cannot do is as nothing, because there is nothing limiting in them. Ministers may well be subject to scrutiny by the Assemblyso they should beand by the Audit Committee; none the less, the powers given under the two clauses remain unfettered.
	I want Welsh Ministers and the Assembly always to do things that assist the people of Wales, but I do not want them to have powers that could be abused or are wider than they should have at this stage. To bring Welsh Ministers into line with UK Ministers is yet another way of devolving by the back door.
	Once again, the Government should have been honest about devolution, and perhaps they should have gone the whole hog and held a referendum. However, they have not done sothey are salami-slicing, as the Father of the House has said. The provision is another slice of salami, and it is being made by stealth, rather than in an open fashion. Amendments Nos. 64 and 66 are small amendments, as I mentioned. They do not fundamentally alter Ministers' ability to ensure the well-being of Wales, but they clarify the position and provide the limits that the Under-Secretary believes exist in clauses 60 and 70 as drafted.

Lembit �pik: I sense that the hon. Lady may wish to divide the House so, for the record, I wish to say that, for once, I was persuaded by the Minister's argument. It is a judgment rather than a principle, but is she not being a little pedantic in pursuing her concerns? The Minister made a cogent argument about the Government's intentions and, in my assessment, it would be useful, rather than harmful, to retain those provisions as drafted.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The amendments do nothing but set fairly broad parameters. By adding the words within their powers to clause 60 we would ensure that we stick both to the letter of the law and to the intention behind devolution by limiting Ministers' powers. That may be taken as read, but I would prefer to see such a limitation included in the Bill. Likewise, the insertion in clause 70 of the word reasonable would not undermine the spirit of the provision, and would ensure that a test of reasonableness can be applied to the broad powers of financial assistance in the clause.

Lembit �pik: rose

Cheryl Gillan: I am being very generous.

Lembit �pik: As the hon. Lady says, she is being generous and, indeed, modest. I think that she is saying that amendment No. 64 does nothing but clarify clause 60. Taken as a package, however, the amendments do rather more, and would remove the clause.

Cheryl Gillan: I merely wish to press amendments Nos. 64 and 66I do not wish to press the remaining amendments any further. I wish not to wreck the existing provisions, but to provide clarity and certainty, which have not been afforded by the way in which the Bill has been drafted.
	May I hasten to comfort the hon. Gentleman? I certainly do not wish to remove clauses 60 and 70. In fact, the original proposal to delete those clauses was designed to enable Committee members to discuss the subject. We were not given the time to hold such a discussion in Committee so, unfortunately, we must do so on Report. The insertion of the words within their powers in clause 60 and the addition of the word reasonable to clause 70 do not wreck the existing provisions. I have gone a long way towards accepting the Minister's explanation, and the amendments have the best interests of the Welsh people and Wales at heart. However, they provide a safeguard so that Ministers act within their powers. They offer, too, a test of reasonableness on the financial assistance that Ministers may, or may not, give.
	I accept the Minister's explanation about the Counsel General, but, again, a test of reasonableness would not go amiss. I am rather sad that the Minister could not accept those small amendments, but I should not be surprised as there has been very little give and take at the Dispatch Box during the passage of the Bill. It is a shame, however, as consensus could easily have been achieved on many of these issues. With a heavy heart, I seek the leave of the House to press amendments Nos. 64 and 66 to a vote, and I urge my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: No. 64, in page 35, line 28, after 'anything', insert 'within their powers'.[Mrs. Gillan.]

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 282.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 75
	  
	Business Organisations

Huw Irranca-Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 41, line 4, leave out clause 75.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12Business scheme
	'(1)   The Welsh Ministers must make a scheme (the business scheme) setting out how they propose, in the exercise of their functions, to take account of the interests of business.
	(2)   The business scheme must specify how the Welsh Ministers propose
	(a)   to carry out consultation about the exercise of such of their functions as relate to matters affecting the interests of business, and
	(b)   to consider the impact of the exercise of their functions on the interests of business.
	(3)   The Welsh Ministers
	(a)   must keep the business scheme under review, and
	(b)   may from time to time remake or revise it.
	(4)   Before making, remaking or revising the business scheme, the Welsh Ministers must consult such organisations representative of business (including trade unions) and such other organisations as they consider appropriate.
	(5)   The Welsh Ministers must publish the business scheme when they make it and whenever they remake it; and, if they revise the scheme without remaking it, they must publish either the revisions or the scheme as revised (as they consider appropriate).
	(6)   If the Welsh Ministers publish a scheme or revisions under subsection (5) they must lay a copy of the scheme or revisions before the Assembly.
	(7)   The Welsh Ministers must
	(a)   within the period of two years beginning with the day on which the business scheme is first made, and
	(b)   subsequently at intervals of no more than two years,
	publish a report of how the proposals set out in the business scheme have been implemented.
	(8)   The Welsh Ministers must lay before the Assembly a copy of each report published under subsection (7).'.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to move the amendment and support the new clause because their purpose is to recognise the interests of business throughout Wales. I was especially pleased that, on Second Reading, when my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) and I spoke for such a provision, the Under-Secretary appeared to respond favourably. Now that it has been drafted accurately

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber or holding conversations in the Chamber please leave quickly and quietly?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am especially pleased that business interests are recognised in the amendments as being those not solely of employers but of employees. They are tied together in new clause 12 so that the voice of the trade unions and employees is equally important to that of employers. When we talk about developing the economic, environmental and social well-being of Wales, as we did in our previous discussion, the business community should have a powerful say.
	We tabled the amendments to ensure that the voice of the business sectoremployees and employerswas recognised and included in the Bill in the same way as that of the voluntary sector and the public sector. Subsection (4) of new clause 12 refers to
	organisations representative of business (including trade unions) and such other organisations as they consider appropriate.
	That is why the amendment and new clause have the support of not only the TUC in Wales but the Wales Trades Union Council.
	The amendments were tabled in the spirit of consensus. They have the backing of the people, business organisations and employee organisations in Wales. I hope that not only the House but the Under-Secretary will support them.
	The new clause proposes that reports be made at intervals of no more than two years, rather than yearly, as will apply to the voluntary and public sector schemes. In defence of that slight deviation from the other two schemes, I would say that this is precisely what the unions and employers in the business community have asked for. They recognise the need for openness and transparency in reporting back, but they believe that it could be extremely cumbersome if that were to be an annual requirement. They would prefer the period to be up to two years.
	I hope that amendment No. 62 and new clause 12 will garner the support of the House today.

Adam Price: I am happy to support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). It was made clear by Ministers at the time of the passing of the Government of Wales Act 1998 that trade unions were meant to be included in the ambit of business organisations, but the amendment makes that absolutely explicit. It should be welcomed for that reason in particular, but also because it clearly sets out the requirement for consultation with social and economic organisationsas I prefer to call themin a way that is consistent with the schemes that apply to other sectors. This would be widely welcomed by many including the Wales TUC, whose response to the consultation conducted by the Welsh Assembly Government on business consultation made it clear that the TUC wanted a formal basis for the inclusion of trade unions and a structured process to be put in place.
	That sentiment has been echoed by the main representatives of the private sector. The CBI has called for a scheme along similar lines to those proposed by the hon. Members for Ogmore and for Newport, East (Jessica Morden). Other business organisations, including the West Wales Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, have made a plea that the general duty to consult business organisations needs a proper structure in terms of its mechanism and its timetable, similar to that proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that this will not have to be a Labour rebellion, and that the Minister will finally accept a substantial amendment, because it has garnered considered support on both sides of the House. I shall listen with optimism to the Minister's response in due course. Meanwhile, we are happy to offer our support for the proposals.

Jessica Morden: In speaking to the amendment and the new clause, I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I also acknowledge that the Welsh Assembly Government has a good, constructive relationship with business and the trade unions in Wales, which is illustrated by the work that is being done through the Business Partnership Council.
	Clauses 72 and 73 provide that Welsh Ministers must establish the Business Partnership Council with local government and place a duty on the Welsh Assembly Government to consult and advise local government, and to set up and publish a local government scheme. Clause 74 provides that Welsh Ministers must set up a voluntary sector scheme to explain how they will work and consult with the voluntary sector in Wales. Yet clause 75 calls for Ministers only to carry out consultations with
	such organisations representative of business and such other organisations as they consider appropriate.
	The obligation in the Bill to consult business is therefore considerably weaker than the obligations relating to local government and the voluntary sector, and it contains no reference to trade unions representing employees.
	It is important to recognise that business and the trade unions play a key role in developing Wales. The new clause acknowledges that and proposes a similar arrangement for business and the unions, to be known as the business scheme. That would enable the public to see what Welsh Ministers are committed to do for business. Relations with business and trade unions are currently good, but future Administrations would have an obligation to ensure that that continued. The scheme would also ensure that the role of the trade unions was formally acknowledged. Welsh Ministers would have a duty to consult them, and the views of workers in Wales would be heard when decisions were made by the Welsh Assembly Government.
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for considering opinions that have the support of the CBI and the TUC in Wales. I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.

Mark Williams: We support the amendment and, in particular, the new clause. The amendment touches a nerve among many businesses, especially small businesses, which feel that any existing consultation arrangements are not working very well. The new clause sets out the proposed arrangements very clearly, especially the monitoring arrangements.
	Clause 75 refers to
	consultation with . . . organisations as they consider appropriate.
	I remind Members of the importance of organisations such as the Mid Wales Manufacturing Group and chambers of trade throughout Wales. I hope that the new clause will enable their views to be taken into account.

Cheryl Gillan: I hope that the Minister will tell us whether what is proposed in new clause 12 could be dealt with by clauses 60 and 70, which we have just discussed. I should also like to know whether he has any idea of the cost of the business scheme. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has estimated the cost, the time and the number of staff involved. Would any extra staff be needed?
	The recent Ministry of Defence withdrawals have affected the deep servicing base at St Athan, which has caused a great deal of concern. I hope that if the Minister accepts new clause 12 or any similar proposalwhich I doubt very much; he does not look as though he is in an accepting moodthere will be appropriate consultation with representatives of those working in such areas.

Huw Irranca-Davies: There would undoubtedly be consultation with various organisations, large and small. The hon. Lady will have noted another slight difference between the new clause and the clauses relating to the public and voluntary sectors: there is no duty to sustain. The independent nature of the business community is reflected in the slightly different wording. While the requirement for consultation is absolutely correct, I do not see the need for a duty to step in and sustain a business. I do not think that any of us would want that.

Cheryl Gillan: That answers one of my questions.
	New clause 12(7) states that
	within the period of two years beginning with the day on which the business scheme is first made, and . . . subsequently at intervals of no more than two years,
	reports must be presented on
	how the proposals set out in the business scheme have been implemented.
	The period of two years seems to be arbitrary, plucked out of the air. Perhaps the Minister will comment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As I have said, the TUC and the CBI support the amendment and the new clause, but that proposal follows a request from them. They consider the procedure more manageable and operable than the onerous duty of publishing a report every year. They appreciate the transparency, but do not want a commitment to annual reporting.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for that intervention. I realise that the proposal is supported by the CBI and the TUCI merely wanted to know why a period of two years is preferred to, say, three, five or 10 years, as is normal with a business plan. However, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to new clause 12 in particular.

Nick Ainger: Surprise, surprise, Madam Deputy Speakerwe accept and welcome the amendment and the new clause, and I am sure that everyone welcomes that. The Welsh Assembly Government have worked closely with the business community, including the trade unions, and I expect that they will continue to do so. The new clause, which is a sensible addition to the Bill, is designed to ensure that all parts of the Welsh Assembly Government take the impact on business into account when drawing up policy. I also welcome its clarifying the position of trade unions within the business scheme.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked why such matters could not be dealt with under clauses 60 and 70

Cheryl Gillan: Do not such powers already exist under clauses 60 and 70? Welsh Ministers could use the powers granted by their wide provisions to take precisely such action, if they wished.

Nick Ainger: The point is that under the terms of clauses 60 and 70, Ministers would choose whether to take such action. The new clause puts the scheme on a statutory footingan option that Ministers clearly could not exercise under clauses 60 and 70.
	The extra costs involved will be minimal. The point is to ensure that regulations emerging from the Assembly are made with the involvement and agreement of all parts of industry, which is why we welcome the new clause.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He says that the cost will be minimal and I presume, given that he is going to accept the new clause, that he has had a chance to calculate in detail the costs and staffing necessary to implement it. Will he agree to place in the Library of the House those detailed calculations, which would be helpful? Will he also justify to the House the two-year period, so that I can satisfy myself that another period would not be more optimal?

Nick Ainger: I am assured that the costs are minimal as most of this work is already being done by Assembly officials. All sides of business and industry have decided that they want a scheme that can be reviewed every two years. The new clause takes on board their views and I would be amazed if the hon. Lady disagreed with them.
	In conclusion, I welcome the new clause and I commend it to the House.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am very pleased to see not only cross-party support for the new clause but support from throughout the Labour Benches. The Minister has given his support not just to the principle behind the new clause, as he did on Second Reading, but to the new clause itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) pointed out, there is already a good working relationship between the Assembly and business. However, the new clause will formalise the Assembly's relationship not only with employers' organisations, but with employees. I am grateful for such support and I thank the Minister for his consideration.
	Amendment agreed to.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 50, line 7, leave out clauses 92 to 101.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 50, line 17 [Clause 92], at end insert
	'; and the Assembly may by resolution request that the Parliament of the United Kingdom legislate on any matter specified in Part 1 of Schedule 5.'.
	No. 59, in page 51 [Clause 94], leave out lines 29 to 31.
	No. 60, in line 38, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert
	'(7)   The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 30 days beginning immediately after the day on which notice of the Assembly's resolution is received, submit the draft to the Clerk.
	(8)   It is for the Clerk to submit draft Orders in Council for approval by Her Majesty in Council.'.
	No. 61, in page 52, line 7 [Clause 95], leave out '60' and insert '30'.
	No. 7, in page 89 [Clause 160], leave out line 23.
	New clause 1Referendum about commencement of Assembly Measure provisions
	'(1)   Her Majesty may by Order in Council cause a referendum to be held throughout Wales about whether the Assembly Measure provisions should come into force.
	(2)   If the majority of voters in a referendum held by virtue of subsection (1) vote in favour of the Assembly Measure provisions coming into force, the Assembly Measure provisions are to come into force in accordance with section 92.
	(3)   But if they do not, that does not prevent the making of a subsequent Order in Council under subsection (1).
	(4)   No recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under subsection (1) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament and the Assembly.
	(5)   But subsection (4) is not satisfied unless the resolution of the Assembly is passed on a vote in which the number of Assembly members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of Assembly seats.
	(6)   A draft of a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under subsection (1) may not be laid before either House of Parliament, or the Assembly, until the Secretary of State has undertaken such consultation as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	(7)   For further provision about referendums held by virtue of subsection (1) see Schedule 6.
	(8)   In this Act, the Assembly Measure provisions means sections 92 to 101.'.
	New clause 3Scrutiny of proposed Orders in Council by Joint Scrutiny Committee
	'(1)   There shall be a Joint Scrutiny Committee (in this section, the Committee) that shall scrutinise every Order in Council made pursuant to section 94 of this Act and report on its expediency to the House of Commons and to the National Assembly for Wales.
	(2)   The Committee shall consist of ten Members of the House of Commons and ten Members of the National Assembly of Wales.
	(3)   The Committee may choose its own Chairman and determine its own procedure.'.

Dominic Grieve: Clauses 92 to 101 make up part 3 of the Bill, which deals with Assembly measures. We debated these provisions in detail and at length in Committee, but I was left entirely unpersuaded by the Government's arguments about the proposals' necessity or desirability.
	The House must bear it in mind that these clauses would mean that primary legislation would cease to be the responsibility of this Houseor any Assembly or Parliamentand be replaced by a system of government through Order in Council. It would be difficult to imagine a more fundamental shift from the normal convention and practice in our country's constitution, although the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill tries to extend the same principles to the entirety of the governance of this country, including England.
	It became clear in the course of our Committee debates that the Government simply did not grasp the extent of the change that these proposals would introduce. We were told that the measures were perfectly reasonable, and that Orders in Council are commonly used. I accept the latter point, but they are not used for enacting measures that are normally the preserve of primary legislation. However, that is precisely the system that we will be introducing if we allow these clauses to go through.
	Parliament gives power to the Executive. The Government have argued that they want to devolve power so that it is brought closer to the people, but where will that power be exercised? That is the important question, as clauses 92 to 101 make it glaringly apparent that the exercise of the power supposedly to be transferred to the Assembly will remain entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
	For example, clause 94(7) allows the Secretary of State the right to refuse to enact a draft order proposed by the Assembly. Parliament will have an opportunity to vote on such a draft order, but will be able to see it only in draft form. We will not be able to see the order in its final form.

Nick Ainger: indicated dissent.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps I have chosen my words badly, but in Committee we established that Parliament will be presented with a draft Order in Council and asked to decide whether it should go ahead. However, it will not be able to determine whether the order in its final form, as put together by the Welsh Assembly, should be approved. That is because, at that stage, the Secretary of State is the only person with the power to intervene and prevent a measure from being enacted. If I have got any of that wrong, I shall be pleased to give way to the Minister so that he can correct me.

Nick Ainger: I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman with how the system will work. The Welsh Assembly will propose an Order in Council, which will then be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny, when it can be amended. After that, the Assembly will consider any changes and introduce a draft Order in Council. That draft order will then be laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the normal affirmative procedure, both here and in the House of Lords, will apply. It is not the measures that will come before Parliament in any form, but the policy statement justifying why the Order in Council is required. There will be a substantial amount of information attached to that, and it will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the hon. Gentleman.

Dominic Grieve: It certainly clarifies the matter up to a point, and it sounds even worse than I originally thought. In Committee I understood that although the House would vote on the draft Order in Council, there would be an opportunity for the House to scrutinise the actual draft measure. The Minister shakes his head and says that that is not the case, but I have to express some surprise. That is not at all what I remember.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is being removed from Parliament are precisely the rights that were not afforded to it by dictatorial monarchs down the ages? This activity is at the heart of what Parliament does, and either the Welsh Assembly should do it or this place should. It is unacceptable for no one to do it.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with my right hon. Friend; that is the matter that was of such concern to us in Committee. We tabled amendments to try to beef up the procedures, but they were all rejected. That is why I shall invite the House to take out the entirety of this part of the Bill. In my view, it has no place in the architecture of the legislationand indeed, it is completely unnecessary.
	If the Government were honest and true to their principles they would have no hesitation in putting the idea of Acts of the Assembly to a referendum, getting the necessary powers and handing those powers to the Welsh Assembly. There are arguments both in favour of and against further devolution, but at least that would have some intellectual honesty about it, whereas what is now proposed is a hybrid system that will grossly undermine this House's ability to scrutinise legislation, but will not give the Welsh Assembly any measure of sovereign control over its own legislation.
	The matters in schedule 5, part 1all important areas of legislation for the people of Waleswill be determined by a sort of minuet danced between the Secretary of State and the Assembly, in which the Secretary of State ultimately exercises all the control. A measure more calculated to undermine the principles of parliamentary democracy would be difficult to find. However, having seen the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, and what the Government seek to impose on the country more generally in that measure, we should not be surprised by what they are doing to the people of Wales, who are being treated as guinea pigs for their proposals elsewhere.
	The longer we debated this issue in Committee, the less persuaded I was that these measures were necessary. If the Government had the courage to bring devolution a further notch forward, they would accept the need for a referendum and Assembly Acts. Moreover, there are so many downsides to the proposals, which risk producing an environment in which the ability to scrutinise legislation and determine it properly will be seriously undermined.

Adam Price: Does the shadow Attorney-General see any contradiction between his proposal to delete part 1 of schedule 5 and the position taken by the leader of his party in the Assembly, who has voted, and called, for extending schedule 5 to include new areas such as energy?

Dominic Grieve: Not at all; this highlights the nub of the issue. It is possible to have a perfectly reasoned debate about whether the Welsh Assembly should be granted more powers. I am aware that within Wales, and outside it, there will be people with different opinions on that subject. There are perfectly valid arguments that Wales should follow the pattern of Scotland and have primary legislative powers, and that the Welsh Assembly should acquire sovereign authority over areas of legislative competence, if that is what is desired. That, in a sense, is what the Government propose in part 4.
	I shall make something clear again, both to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and to the Ministerand, indeed, to anybody else. We have said all along that if that is what the Government seek to do, it is right that they should put it to the people of Wales, and if the people of Wales want it, they should have it. That is why we shall certainly not oppose the measures in part 4.
	My colleagues in the Welsh Assembly have views on that subject, and are perfectly entitled to argue that greater powers should be devolved to Wales. That is what an evolving democracy is aboutjust as people are also entitled to argue that that should not happen. My objection is not to the principle that there might be further devolution to Wales, but to the hybrid system that the Government seek to set up to avoid having to ask the Welsh people a referendum question, because they know that would be embarrassing within their own party.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend accept the fact that I believe in further devolution, and that, as we have taken this step, I would like the Welsh people to make many more of their own decisions? There are arguments about whether we should have devolution at all, but now that it has been introduced, it ought to be effective. What is so dangerous is the fact that we are evolving a system in which the prime player is neither the Welsh people through their Assembly, nor the United Kingdom people though the United Kingdom Parliament, but the Government through executive action. That is intolerable and undemocratic.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely. This is a creeping process, which has probably been going on for some time. This Parliament has been successively surrendering powers of legislative competence through the greater use of statutory instruments and Orders in Council for a long time. In 1966 there were, I think, 35 statutory instruments, whereas there are now some 3,000 to 4,000 a year. That is already a measure of the loss of competencebut at least in key areas of primary legislation, historically we have kept the competence. That is what we are surrendering now.
	As I have said, if I were being asked to surrender that competence to a Welsh Assembly taking over our powers, I might argue against that because of my attitude to devolution, but I could not fault it as a procedure. I also have to acknowledge that in the Scottish context, that has worked quite well. However, I am not prepared to surrender the power of this House to scrutinise and enact legislation to a system that very considerably increases the power of the Executive.

Lembit �pik: I am trying to understand the Conservatives' position on this matter, because that would help us to see what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do with his amendments. Can he clarify the definitive Conservative party policy? As the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) has pointed out, there seems some confusion between what the leader of the Conservatives in Wales was saying and what the hon. Gentleman is saying now.

Dominic Grieve: I am afraid that the only confusion is in the hon. Gentleman's mind. The Conservative party's position is extremely straightforward: any increased devolved powers for the Welsh Assembly should come through part 4. If the people of Wales want those devolved powers, they can have them by voting in a referendum under part 4. If they chose to have them in that way, our party's task would be to facilitate that process and make it work effectively.
	The Conservative partythe official Oppositionwill not at any stage subscribe to a system of governance that removes legislative competence from everybody and hands it to the Executive. I hope that that is now clear to the hon. Gentleman, and that he understands exactly where we stand.

Daniel Kawczynski: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would make it easier for the Government to impose regional government in the west midlands without offering a referendum?

Dominic Grieve: It is true that the people of Wales will have no referendum on the part 3 proposals. My hon. Friend will have noticed that one of our amendments would require a referendum to be held. The people of Wales should be consulted on whether they wish to be governed by Order in Council, but the Government have never consulted the people of Wales on part 3. It was dreamt up by bureaucrats and will be imposed on the people of Wales. It suits the Government because it resolves the internal problems in the Labour party, with some members set against further devolution and some wanting much more.

Adam Price: I wish to return to the internal problems in the Conservative party. If the Order in Council procedure is such anathema to the Conservative party, why, on 25 January in the Assembly Committee considering the Bill, did the leader of the Welsh Conservative party ask for more subject areas to be added to schedule 5?

Dominic Grieve: Schedule 5 defines the powers that could be given to the Welsh Assembly under part 3 or part 4. I do not see a problem with those of my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly who say that they would like more devolved powers for Wales. The question is how those powers should be devolved. It seems to me to be a fairly simple matter.

John Gummer: If I sat in the Welsh Assembly, I would want the schedule to include several powers that it does not include at present, but I would expect thatin order to press for part 4 to be enactedthe people of Wales could make that judgment. The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), with whom I often agree, misses the point. If one wants greater devolved powers, this is the only way to achieve that under the format presented by the Government.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) about whether such powers could be used more extensively in England, the answer must be yes. Indeed, the whole constitutional trend since Labour came into power in 1997 is to minimise the use of Parliament forgovernmental business. The Government go to considerable lengths to avoid having legislation scrutinised in this place. When it is scrutinised in this place, the guillotining of business means that we cannot give it adequate scrutiny. One of the real ironiesI regard it as a disgraceis that the Government, having preventing us from scrutinising legislation properly, claim that as Parliament cannot do the job they might as well give it to someone else. That is a pattern of behaviour from this Government.
	The House should not subscribe to part 3, unless the Government choose to have a referendum on it and allow the Welsh people to understand what it is all about. That is what we try to achieve in new clause 1.

David Jones: If the Government were to be minded to offer such a referendum, would it not be just as easy for them to offer one on part 4 at this stage and forget part 3?

Dominic Grieve: It would be and, from a constitutional point of view, part 4 would be a much better option than part 3. If someone offered me a choice between part 3 and part 4, I would choose part 4. Although it is a major constitutional change, part 4 at least has some internal coherence, which part 3 lacks. I accept that it is possible that the Welsh people, if they were to be consulted, might decide that they wished to be governed by Order in Council under the part 3 procedure. If that choice were put to them, I would enjoy campaigning in Wales and explaining to people what part 3 is all about. If the Government think that part 3 is such an attractive proposal, they should accept new clause 1, and I hope to hear the Minister say so before the end of the debate. If new clause 1 is accepted, we will see the same spirit of concord that we saw when the Government accepted an amendment tabled by Labour Back Benchers a few moments ago.
	New clause 3 is a fall-back position. Inadequate as part 3 is, new clause 3 would provide a system for a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and the Assembly to scrutinise draft orders. That would go some way to remedying the democratic deficit of part 3. Amendment No. 7 is consequential to amendment No. 4.
	Our view is straightforward. Further devolution can work only if it is honest in empowering the legislature rather than favouring the Executive. Part 3 is a bureaucrat's charter. It is also a charter that suits Government very well, and hundreds of years of acquired rights, which are enshrined in legislatures, are being systematically eroded by the drafting of part 3. The House should have nothing to do with it. It is unworthy of the Government to propose it. Despite having sat through Committee and debated the Bill extensively during its passage, I did not understand a point that the Minister made today. If, however, it is true that Parliament will have only the vaguest notion of the detail of what the Assembly will enact, that is an even more compelling reason why part 3 should be rejected. Part 3 is the creature of the Executive and I hope that the House will send out a signal that some of us, at least, will not accept that principle.

Ian Lucas: What we have just heard is a gross misrepresentation of the system that is proposed and betrays a profound lack of understanding of the legislative system that has been in operation, certainly since I came to this place in 2001. That is perhaps not surprising from the Conservatives, because they have limited experience of legislation affecting Wales during that period. In reality, that legislation has been subject to unprecedented scrutiny, because of the emergence of pre-legislative scrutiny. I suggested as much to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) during earlier proceedings on the Bill, but he does not seem to have taken it on board.
	Pre-legislative scrutiny was instituted under the Conservative Government before 1997 and has developed substantially since then, especially since 2001 in respect of Wales. Proposals from the Assembly have been scrutinised by Committees of the House, primarily the Welsh Affairs Committee. They have been almost scrutinised to death. In at least two cases, the Public Audit (Wales) Bill and the Transport (Wales) Bill, the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Welsh Affairs Committeeoften working with the Assemblymeant that no substantial amendments were needed when the measures came before the House. Bills have avoided taking up unnecessary Chamber time due to the extent of the pre-legislative scrutiny. No amendments were tabled in the House and Bills went through without difficulty.
	As pre-legislative scrutiny will apply to the process outlined in the Bill, I cannot for the life of me understand why it is regarded as so heinous. The Conservatives often seem to believe in a Whig concept of constitutional history whereby legislative processes in the Chamber reached a state of grace in 1997, such that no constitutional improvement could be possible after that date and that any proposal made since then has been a usurpation of the powers of the general populacepowers that the Government are determined to take from them.

Dominic Grieve: I certainly do not suggest that the problems date only from 1997some of them predate 1997. I want to pick the hon. Gentleman up on one point. He talks about pre-legislative scrutiny, but of whatthe Order in Council or the draft measure? That was the point I made to the Minister, who in Committee made a considerable error that he subsequently had to correct by writing to people. He said that
	the preliminary draft measure, along with its explanatory memorandum, will be attached. It will therefore, going through its pre-legislative scrutiny, be amendable.[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 121.]
	He had to withdraw those comments, but I did not understand from them that we would not see the preliminary draft measure; yet I understand from what he said earlier today that we shall not see it, so how can we even consider, in pre-legislative scrutiny terms, what the measure will be?

Ian Lucas: The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the preliminary draft measure will be given pre-legislative scrutiny, which will be amendable. There is no suggestion that Members will not have the opportunity to consider proposals. They will be considered by the House and by Assembly Members, probably in a joint legislative Committee of the Assembly and Parliament.

David Jones: Is not the hon. Gentleman falling into the trap of thinking that each Order in Council is a one-off? In fact, each Order in Council will devolve primary competence, for a particular matter in a particular field, to the Assembly. The Assembly can then, if it wants, revisit that devolved competence and create further Assembly Measures, which will never be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the House.

Nick Ainger: That is devolution.

David Jones: Precisely, but the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) seems to think that pre-legislative scrutiny will apply to every proposed Assembly Measure, when clearly it will not.

Ian Lucas: Since the Government of Wales Act 1998, devolution of further powers has occurred regularly, as anyone familiar with the development of devolution must be aware, and we have not needed a referendum at every stage of that process. Indeed, until our debates on the Bill, I had never heard a suggestion that a referendum was needed every time a power was transferred to the Assembly. The process has been continuous, but the Conservatives do not seem to recognise the dynamic of devolution and the joint relationship that has developed between the Assembly and Parliament.

Dominic Grieve: There is a slight difference between transferring further functions to the Assembly to operate under the existing devolution settlement and creating a new devolution settlement subject to the powers in part 3. The hon. Gentleman has a legal background and I am sure that if he gave even a moment's thought to the difference between the procedures in part 3 and the existing situation, he would acknowledge that point.

Ian Lucas: Of course there will be a change in the process, but as I pointed out earlier the reason for it is that the existing process leads to the House considering legislation unnecessarily, because it has already been scrutinised. The Conservatives are grasping at straws when they suggest that we are engaged in some perverted constitutional exercise that undermines fundamental liberties. The Government have a proud record on developing pre-legislative scrutiny, recognising the existence of the Assembly and facilitating working relationships between it and the Westminster Parliament that have led to an improvement in the scrutiny of legislation affecting Wales. Far from undermining those relationships, the measure will improve them.

John Gummer: It would be foolish to ignore the background to this part of the Bill. Clearly, some Government Members want no further devolution. For them, even the description of continuing devolution given by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) would be anathema. It is pleasing that the Father of the House is not in the Chamber, for he would have been very unhappy had he heard that.
	Other Labour Members want more devolution. Both views are perfectly reasonable. Indeed, one might find a range of views about devolution among Opposition Memberswhether there is enough or whether it should go further. What is unacceptable is to try to paper over those cracks in a way that strikes at the very heart of the activity of Parliament. That brings me to a direct argument with the hon. Member for Wrexham, but I hope that he will acquit me of anything other than real concern for parliamentary democracy.
	I admit that I would have liked a different way of sharing power in the United Kingdom from that decided on in 1997 and thereafter. However, having undertaken it as we have, it is unacceptable that the people of Wales should have a form of devolution significantly different from that provided for the people of Scotland. Were there an opportunity for a referendum, I hope that the people of Wales would vote for greater devolution, much along the lines of that accorded to people in Scotland.
	What seems unacceptable is to say that, because the majority party does not believe that it could achieve a common view, it will offer the people of Wales what is in part 3 instead of what is essentially in part 4, but that, of course, they must not have a vote on it, because if they did, they might recognise just how silly it issilly in the sense that this is a means whereby the future of the people of Wales is removed from the parliamentary hands in which it is now and from any referendum and placed in the hands of bureaucrats and Ministers.
	The problem for the Government is that all the parallels to this are unflattering; they happen in circumstances where dictatorial Governments, very often monarchical in kind, wanted to have a parliamentary structure that discussed things, argued things, scrutinised things, but did not actually decide things. The trouble for any of us who take an interest in 19th century history is that the Minister's explanation sounds closer to those of Louis Napoleon[Interruption.] It is all right for the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), but I hoped that he would have read up about Louis Napoleon, because he would have found out just how parallel the proposal is.
	As my Welsh nationalist friends know, I am in no way unsupportive of many of the positions that they take, but I am disappointed that both they and the Liberals have fallen for the significantly dangerous sleight of hand that the Conservative party is trying to remove under the amendment. I am not trying to remove it to reduce the Welsh Assembly's powers. I want to remove it so that we can move on to offer to the Welsh Assembly greater powers through the referendum, which would do so publicly and clearly, and I would be happy to debate with the Father of the House the advantages of going further, while he would no doubt explain the advantage of going backwards, which is, of course, the usual direction of his party.

Lembit �pik: Although the right hon. Gentleman may indeed be Suffolk, Coastal's first Welsh nationalist, can he nevertheless not grasp the scepticism that some of us feel about his claimed embracement of the devolution project, given that other Conservative Members have made it clear in the debate that they do not support the devolution of further powers? In addition, there is an absolute mess of policy confusion between what Nick Bourne says for the Conservatives in Cardiff and what right hon. and hon. Members say regarding Conservative policy in Westminster.

John Gummer: Subtlety never was a great Liberal virtue, but let me try to explain what is a very clear subtlety in this matter. It should not matter to the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members will have different views on devolution; what should matter to him is whether the people of Wales will be given an opportunity to decide what they think about devolution. He is a Liberaland this is the point of my speech with which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd can agreeand, in reality, Liberals are always illiberal. When people ask them, Are you going to stand up for democracy, choice and people deciding? Oh, no, they say, much better to let the Government do it, because we might then get a bit, and we might not have to face the electorate to argue the case. It is very interesting: scratch a Liberal and we always find a fascist. That is absolutely true, universally.

Lembit �pik: rose

John Gummer: It is no good saying that I have used an unsuitable word. I mean it in the precise terms of people who believe that the state is right and that the state system should overcome the realities of democracy. The trouble is that the provision proposes the use of Orders in Councilthe very phrase is one of those that means something horrific. It means that the Government and Ministers use a technique that specifically makes democratic control as febrile and slim as is humanly possible in a House that calls itself a Parliament. It is a carefully contrived method of making it almost impossible for anyone to disagree. If that is not the mechanism of Napoleon III and his successors, I really do ask what would be.

Lembit �pik: rose

Chris Ruane: Lembit III.

Lembit �pik: Lembit I. Aside from the somewhat distasteful language that the right hon. Gentleman has uncharacteristically used in his contribution, may I remind him which Government most promoted the use of Orders in Council in the House? Was it not the Conservatives in their 18 years in government who set the precedent for using Orders in Council to govern this country much more than any Government beforehand? Therefore, is he willing to condemn the very Government of whom he was a part?

John Gummer: If that were true

Lembit �pik: It is true.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should listen to the end of my sentence. If that were true, it is also true that a further and extraordinary extension of that has been done by the Government and is being proposed now. If I were to decide to discuss all the Orders in Council in the past with the hon. Gentleman, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would soon stop me, so I will concentrate on the Orders in Council as dealt with in the amendment. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it does not help in a logical argument to say, Because you did it, he can do it. I am arguing something quite different.
	Let us not become caught up in what the Liberals say is distasteful. If what I said was in any way distasteful, of course I withdraw any lack of taste in the sentence, but I think that the hon. Gentleman knows precisely what I mean. Liberals are illiberal when it comes to the promotion of their own views. They are thoroughly illiberal, and they would prefer the Government to impose such things than to give the public the chance to choose them. That is the fundamental issue. We are talking about something much more important than merely the way in which Orders in Council will be discussed.

David Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that both the Labour party and the Conservative party in government have taken various steps to support a decentralisation of powers, either through the Wales Office or the Welsh Assembly, about which I am less enthusiastic, whereas the Liberal party, which has always claimed to be the party of devolution, had a perfect opportunity to introduce home rule when it was last in government and chose not to do so?

John Gummer: The great point that my hon. Friend makes is clear: Liberals in power prefer to keep hold of that power and use it in the way that they want, rather than sharing it. It is only when they are out of power that they are keen on the sharing bit. It is a serious issue to find the Liberal party on the side of the proposal, but I would expect that from it. I am much more unhappy about the Welsh nationalists, because the word principle means something to Welsh nationalists, and it therefore distinguishes them from my experience of the Liberal party. I always remember the person on the doorstep who told me[Hon. Members: Oh, come on.] Labour Members will like this if they wait a moment

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is more important in this matter is whether the occupant of the Chair likes it, and we are now getting a little wide of the mark. The right hon. Gentleman ought to draw himself back to the amendment.

John Gummer: I will certainly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I had hoped to give you a moment of amusement in what might otherwise be a long debate on detail.
	If we now take the principle, being obnoxious, that the Government should arrogate to themselves powers that should be properly in the hands of a democratic Assembly, we should ask ourselves which democratic Assembly should have those powers. It seems to me that that is what the amendment deals with. It would mean that if there were to be devolution, it would have to take place in two ways: Parliament would have to decide to offer it and the people of Wales, in this case, would have to decide through a referendum that they wanted it. The Government wish to avoid both those principles. They do not want Parliament properly to scrutinise each item of devolution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said earlier, such items are part of a group, rather than a series of single items. The Government do not want this Parliament to make those decisions, nor do they want them to be offered to the people of Wales.
	My hon. Friend, with typical generosity, suggested that it would be valuable to put part 3 to a referendum. If the Government offered to do that, I understand that we would be prepared to withdraw amendment No. 4, because it would then be possible for the people of Wales to say what they thought of this political stitch-up. It would also be possible for us to flush out the varying attitudes to this proposal in the governing party. However, when the referendum was proposed, there was, if I may say so delicatelyI hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who asserted that he was not keen on my language, does not mind the word that I am about to usea certain amount of tittering. We imagined going round Wales saying, Would you like the Government to have a power of Orders in Council in order to be able to present things that you ought to be able to decide on? I can imagine the enthusiasm with which people would rush out to vote on such a proposal. The tittering came from not only this side of the House. One or two Labour Membersand there are only one or two in the Chambermanaged, rather ineffectively, to cover up their tittering.
	The question is more serious than was supposed. The people of Wales are not being offered a referendum on part 3 because the Government know, first, that they would be held up to ridicule and, secondly, that the people of Wales would say no. They would say no on one of two grounds: either because they wanted proper devolution, which is why I would say no, or because they thought that they did not want any more devolution, which is what some of my colleagues might think. They would certainly accept that this part of the Bill is a palpable ruse. It is a fake and a fraud, and not a proper thing to bring in front of the House. That is why the Opposition propose its removal. We are democrats and we want Parliament, whether it is the UK Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, or, indeed, the Scottish Parliament, to make decisions democratically.
	My difficulty is that the Minister has been put in an impossible position because he does not really believe what he is saying. I know that because he is a very good arguer on most things. He is clear, concise, comprehensible and comprehensive. On this matter, he has been opaque, long-winded, imprecise and, if I may say so, incomprehensible. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is a man whose mind is sharp and who seizes the point rapidly. The fact that he got to this point in the debate before he understood what the Government were about is a comment not on his intelligence, but on the Government's imprecision and, I think, their lack of knowledge of their own proposals.
	I do not think that you were in the Chair at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, interestingly, there was a point at which Members on the Government Front Bench and the Benches behind were busy trying to discuss what the Government's policy actually was. It was clear that the hon. Member for Wrexham put things in a way that did not quite fit what the Minister thought he had been saying. It certainly did not quite fit what we thought the Minister had been saying. If one has been around as long as I have, one begins to get suspicious when a Minister is imprecise, unclear and unable to communicate a key part of a Billthe part that amendment No. 4 would remove. One begins to wonder whether there is something up and whether things are not quite as they seemof course, they are not at all as they seem.
	Right the way through the debate, the House has been told that we are creating a system that will enable the Welsh Assembly to get more legislation through more rapidly and more sensibly, in terms that are denied it because of the heavy burden on this House. That would sound all right if it were not for the fact that the important necessary phrase, and therefore the Government have decided to take things into their own hands, is missing from that statement. The Government have decided that they will invent a system that ensures that control is no longer in the hands of this democratic Parliament. However, it will be put not into the hands of the democratic Assembly, but, in fact, into the Government's hands. That must be wrong for everyone, but because the matter does not have to be put to a referendum, the cracks between the various and interestingly different views of members of the Labour party can be papered over. That is why I come back to wooing the Welsh nationalists.
	The Welsh nationalists know perfectly well what the Government are about. When it comes to an election, they will say that the provisions are about avoiding the fundamental question of whether the Assembly is going to be a Parliament or not. If the Welsh nationalists were true to their principles, they would say, Look here, we are not going to provide the cover for this. We are not going to stand in front of the Government and pretend that this is another step on the way to devolution. Instead, we are going to stand up and tell the Government to give us part 4. We will fight them on the doorsteps and make sure that we win a referendum. Give us part 4 and do not palm us off with part 3. That is the heart of the opposition that is summed up in amendment No. 4.
	I, who have gone into the Lobbies with my Welsh nationalist friends, sometimes against a Whip, ask them to think seriously about what their position will do to them in the Principality. It will enable people to say very simply, These are people who are more interested in supporting a bureaucratic fudge than standing for the central issue of democratic control over the future of the people of Wales. In the past, there were better ways of doing things than the way that we ended up with, but, having got where we have, let us not allow ourselves to be led down the dangerous path that the Government have proposed.
	If we do not agree to the amendment, we will set a precedent that could be used much more widely. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have not sat through every hour of the debate on the Billalthough it may have seemed like it from time to timebut it is right that the important subject of Welsh Government matters and the Principality should have occupied so much of our time. Those of us who live in the county of Suffolkone of the six counties that, for the purpose of administrative regions, the Government call the east of Englandnote that we have not been given the equivalent time to discuss forced regionalisation, which we do not want and which involves the transfer of powers relating to our police, ambulances and hospitals to a central body in a region. We are concerned that the pattern evident here, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) rightly raised, will enable the Government to say, If this is how we do it for Wales, why don't we do it for the non-existent region of the east of England? There is a lot of business in Parliament. Why don't we bypass the people of that region, just as we have bypassed the people of Wales?.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has to accept that I speak on his side on this occasion not only because I think that we should stand up for the ability of a different part of the United Kingdom to govern itself in a more effective and direct way than the bureaucratic answer being presented by the Minister, but because those of us who are being threatened by another bureaucratic nightmare called regionalisation see in this clause a means of removing from us the right to make decisions through local government that we have at the moment.
	As my hon. Friend says, we tabled the amendment because we need to stand against something that is at the heart of this Government's activityconstantly emasculating the House of Commons, removing from us our powers of control and not allowing us to devolve those powers as we think fit subject to a referendum of the people of that area. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you feel that I am moving away from the amendment, I remind you that it would remove from the Bill the very trick that could be used to get round the problem that this Government cannot win a referendum in England either. Why on earth are they not offering a referendum to the people of Wales? I will tell you, Mr. Deputy Speakerit is because they know very well that they would lose it, and this Government have referendums only if they think that they can win them.
	We want to get rid of part 3 altogether, but I would hope that the Government, in answering, would offer something in its place. I am sure that the real answer is for us to withdraw our amendment and allow the Government to move forward to a referendum on either part 3 or part 4. I suggest that it should be on part 4, and I hope in that case that I would find myself campaigning in the more pleasant company of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) rather than that of the Father of the House.
	At least we would be arguing about reality, democracy, clarity, transparency and consistency. At this moment, we are offered something that is opaque, inconsistent, unclear and fundamentally dishonest. It is for that reason that I am pleased that this party has insisted that we stand up for democracy and against the growing bureaucratisation of our society, led by a Government who are frightened of Parliament, which is best illustrated by the fact that they have a Prime Minister with the worst record of coming here of any Prime Minister since we first started.

Jennifer Willott: I would like to speak to amendments Nos. 59 to 61. It seems a long time since we started debating this group of amendments and I shall endeavour to be brief.
	The amendments would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to derail the Welsh Assembly's wishes. They would remove the power to refuse to lay a draft order before the House and prevent unnecessary delay by requiring the Secretary of State to act within 30 days, rather than the 60 days currently stated in the Bill. Given that any Assembly Measures or draft orders have already been debated and agreed in the Assembly, there appears to be no need for further delay at this end. Liberal Democrats believe that the whole point of devolution is to let the people of Wales have their views represented, and it would completely undermine that principle if the democratic will of the Assembly were allowed to be delayed or completely stymied by the will of one individual in the person of the Secretary of State for Wales.

Lembit �pik: My hon. Friend will, like me, expect the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) to vote for that change because he has made it very clear that he would support any opportunity to increase democratic accountability in the system. Obviously, then, he would agree with my hon. Friend's argument that the will of the Assembly is clearly a more democratic guide to the interests of Wales than one appointed Secretary of State for Wales.

Jennifer Willott: Not surprisingly, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Dominic Grieve: I would be grateful if, in the course of her remarks, the hon. Lady spoke to amendment No. 59 in her name and those of her hon. Friends. I am sympathetic to the idea of preventing the Secretary of State from derailing the process, but the impact of that amendment, if I understand it correctly, appears to be to remove the need for there to be a resolution of this House at all.

Jennifer Willott: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Liberal Democrats believe in a full Welsh Parliament, so ideally we would like the democratic will of the Welsh people to be expressed in such a Parliament. However, the amendments are about ensuring that, in the orders that come through this Parliament, the will of the Assembly cannot be derailed.

Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way again?

Jennifer Willott: I would rather not. This debate has gone on for a long time and it is important that we move on, or many issues will not be covered.
	Unfortunately, we cannot support the Tory amendments in this group. Although we do not agree with all of the Bill, as we have made clear a number of times during the debates, we believe in devolution and would like the Assembly to have further powers. The Conservatives' amendments would slow up the process and cause unnecessary delays that would undermine the view of the Assembly; therefore we cannot support them.

David Jones: The hon. Lady talks in terms of delay, but could not delay be avoided altogether if we deleted part 3 and proceeded immediately to part 4?

Jennifer Willott: I point out that the hon. Gentleman's own party does not necessarily agree with that. We have made our view clear throughout.
	Depending on the Minister's response, we may want to press amendment No. 60 to a vote.

David Jones: I rise to support wholeheartedly the amendment that stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Part 3 goes to the heart of what I consider to be a most reprehensible and devious piece of legislation proposed by this Government.
	The Government seek to portray part 3 as an innocuous measure aimed at modestly increasing or, if you like, streamlining the powers of the Assembly. Were that the case I have no doubt that neither I nor my right hon. and hon. Friends would have any problems with it and we would not be taking up the time of the House. The Assembly is now a fact of life in Wales. It may not yet be working entirely satisfactorily but it is part of the fabric of government in Wales and we all have a duty to make it work as best it can. However, part 3 is not a modest measure. It is a measure aimed at conferring primary legislative competence on the Assembly on a piecemeal basis. It is therefore, by any measure, a major constitutional innovation which, if enacted, will transfer a significant degree of legislative competence from this place to another legislative body.
	The fact that such transfer is, as I say, on a piecemeal basis through Orders in Council does not render it any less significant. The fact is that, over time, more and more primary powers will be ceded by Parliament to the Assembly, subject of course always to the executive filtration process of the Secretary of State, which, like my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, I find particularly repugnant.
	It is generally agreed that the convention that has developed in this country is that if primary powers are ceded by Parliament to another body, a referendum should first take place in which the will of the people is consulted. That is what happened in Wales in 1997; that is what should happen now. The Government know that. Part 4 provides that such a referendum must take place before Assembly Acts may be passed, but Assembly Measures will be no less primary legislation, so the question is: why will the Government not give the people of Wales the simple right to vote on the proposals in a referendum? The answer is simple: they know that they would lose.
	The Secretary of State has already acknowledged that there is no consensus in Wales for more primary powers for the Assembly. On 15 June last year, he said:
	we will call a referendum only if there is a consensus for one. There is no consensus for one now, and it would be lost.[Official Report, 15 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 266.]
	and recently the right hon. Gentleman said that neither he nor the Welsh First Minister was
	in the business of calling referendums we are going to lose.
	That is all well and good, but if the Secretary of State fears that the people of Wales would vote against the transfer of primary powers to the Assembly, why is he so insistent on inflicting those powers on the people of Wales, whether or not they want them?
	The suspicion must beI hope that it is not unfairthat some internal Labour party tension is prompting the proposals in part 3, which enable the transfer of powers to the Assembly while preserving the illusion of power remaining at Westminster, whereas, in fact, the power remains in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales. The fact that the proposals constitute such a device was acknowledged by Lord Richard when he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. What he said has been quoted before, but it deserves to be quoted again. He said:
	Let's be frank about it, it is a device to avoid having to come to Westminster and ask for primary powers to be formally devolved. It is quite an interesting device. . . . Westminster can say they have not devolved primary legislative powers, but depending on the way in which the Order in Council procedure is used, it could in effect be a concealed grant of almost a direct legislative competence down to Cardiff.
	In fact, it is more than almost; it is the transfer of a direct legislative competence to Cardiff without first consulting the people of Wales in a referendum.
	That is reprehensible, and made all the more so by the fact that control of the whole procedure resides in the Executive and not in this House. The Minister shakes his head, but it is true: control rests with the Secretary of State for Wales, not with this House. The proposals represent a fraud on the people of Wales and the electorate of the entire United Kingdom. If the people of Wales are to have more devolutionnot an ignoble aspiration on the part of those who want itwe should be entirely satisfied that that is what they want. Part 3 is wholly unnecessary; it is in the Bill purely and simply to serve the internal interests of the Labour party.
	I say that we should proceed immediately to part 4 and consult the people of Wales now, through a referendum, on whether they do indeed want more legislative competence to be handed down to Cardiff. If so, we must abide by their decision and hand over that power. If not, we must equally respect their decision. The proposal is a three-card trickan absolute disgrace to the Labour party. Perhaps the absence of Labour Members indicates the shame that they feel. What is proposed is an illegitimate exercisean attempt to usurp the powers of this place. It is wholly reprehensible and the amendment should be supported.

Nick Ainger: Well, we have gone over the same old ground as we did in Committee. Let me put on the record what is, in fact, proposed in part 3, and not the fantasy outlined by Conservative Members. The purpose of part 3 is to provide the Assembly with a streamlined procedure to achieve its legislative priorities. It builds on the existing devolution settlement, giving the Assembly greater scope to determine the detail of Welsh legislation, but with Parliament remaining in overall control through the Order in Council process. It will enable the Assembly to break free from the Westminster logjam without fundamentally altering the devolution settlement. That was approved by the referendum in 1997.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister repeats what he said on Second Readingthat there is a legislative logjambut we established in Committee that there is no legislative logjam. Why should we take seriously what he has to say when, in fact, he is merely repeating verbatim what he said on Second Reading and not engaging in debate at all.

Nick Ainger: It is not surprising that I repeat what I said verbatim: the hon. Gentleman made the same points on Second Reading and I am merely responding to them.
	The hon. Gentleman claims that there is no legislative logjam, but of course there is. The Welsh Assembly cannot get legislation on the statute book as quickly as it would like to. The Bill proposes a way to deal with that problem.
	Everyone agrees that the split between the legislature and the Executive needs to be established, but if amendment No. 4 were passed, it would result in the absurdity of a legislature without any legislative powers. The Assembly might have to wait many years to acquire primary powers in a referendum; in the meantime, Wales would be wholly dependent on primary legislation passed at Westminster, which would have to compete for time with UK Government priorities.

David Jones: The Minister suggests that there would be a delay of years, but why should there be any delay at all? Why do the Government not simply proceed immediately to a referendum under part 4? Is it because they know that they would lose it?

Nick Ainger: As we have debated on many occasions and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained several times, the Labour party's view is that if a referendum on any particular issue were held now, there would be no guarantee that it would be won. That would deal a fundamental blow to the confidence and reputation of the Assembly. We have put part 4 in the Bill so that, in the future, when a two-thirds majority in the Assembly deem that the time is right for a referendum and that there is a consensus in Wales in favour of moving forward to full primary powers, a referendum will be held. At present, the judgment is that now is not the time.

David Davies: The Minister said that the Government would not hold a referendum because there is no guarantee that they will win it. Does not that underline the point that we have been trying to make, which is that the Government have got into the habit of holding referendums only when they feel that they can win them, whereas we believe in holding referendums to allow people to have their say?

Nick Ainger: I am trying to remember how many referendums were held in 18 years of Tory rule. The answer is: not one. I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman about referendums. His argument is bizarre. The purpose of referendums is to establish people's view on a change.
	It is pointless to hold a referendum if one knows that one is not going to achieve the change that is its purpose. [Interruption.] I am not going to take any lectures from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was a member of the Cabinet for many of the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in government. During that period, not one referendum was held.
	The procedure set out in part 3 will enable the Assembly to deal in a more timely way with legislation to deliver manifesto commitments made by Welsh Ministers, and will prevent the need to secure slots for Wales-only Bills or to rely on suitable England and Wales Bills being introduced at the right time.
	Turning to Conservative new clause 1, which is the same as new clause 6, which was debated and rejected in Committee, the proposal to hold a referendum before the relevant part of the Bill can come into effect is unnecessary. There was a clear commitment in the Labour manifesto at the general election in May 2005 to
	legislate for a stronger Assembly with enhanced legislative powers.
	The Government were elected on that manifesto. It is argued that the proposals were not set out in detail for the electorate, but the electorate knows that once a Government are formed their job is to introduce detailed proposals, and that is what we did in the White Paper published in June last year. There was not a single response among the 81 responses received to suggest that a referendum was required before the Assembly could be granted power to make Assembly Measures on matters on which Parliament had given it legislative competence. Those powers are an adaptation of the current settlement, not a fundamental change, and they are not the same as giving the Assembly primary powers.
	Part 3 does not give the Assembly any new powers to legislate on devolved subjects, but it provides a new procedure for Parliament to grant such powers. It is extraordinary that the Opposition should want Parliament to hold an expensive referendum to seek permission to change our own procedures. Parliament will be able to scrutinise and control on a case-by-case basis the draft Orders in Council that confer those legislative powers on the Assembly. It will rightly be for the Assembly to scrutinise the way in which its legislative competence is used to enact Assembly Measures that address the needs of Wales. Since 1999, Parliament has passed legislation that gives the Assembly powers to make its own provisions for Wales. Increasingly, Parliament has been willing to give the Assembly broad powers to legislate in Wales-only clauses in England and Wales Bills. The proposed system develops that approach. Parliament still has control of the process, as legislative competence cannot be conferred on the Assembly unless both Houses of Parliament have agreed to do so. It is essential that part 3 should be in place from the outset. It is essential, too, that the Assembly should have the ability to seek legislative competence on its own initiative.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister says that it is essential that part 3 should be in place, yet only a few moments ago, he acknowledged that part 4 probably could not be implemented because the people of Wales did not want it. Why does he think that part 3 is desired by the people of Wales?

Nick Ainger: Because they voted for a Labour Government and a Labour manifesto.
	Amendment No. 5, which was tabled by the Conservatives, deals with Assembly resolutions to ask Parliament to pass legislation on devolved matters, but it would not change the legal effect of the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Assembly from making such a resolution. While Parliament passes legislation, it is for Government to introduce it, so the Government's role could not be circumvented and the amendment is not required. In addition, I remind Members of the provision in clause 33 whereby the Secretary of State is required to consult the Assembly about the Government's legislative programme. The Assembly can use the consultation to ensure that the Secretary of State is aware of matters that it wishes to be dealt with in primary legislation affecting Wales, whether or not the Assembly has competence to make Assembly Measures on those matters. There is therefore no need for the amendment.
	Turning to new clause 3, I have made it clear throughout the progress of the Bill that pre-legislative scrutiny of proposed Orders in Council under clause 94 should be at the discretion of Members of Parliament and of Assembly Members. It is worth maintaining flexibility, rather than specifying requirements for joint scrutiny in the Bill. It is worth noting, too, that the House of Commons already makes provision for the Welsh Affairs Committee to undertake joint inquiries with Assembly Committees under Standing Orders Nos. 137A(1)(a) and 137A(3). That arrangement has led to successful pre-legislative scrutiny of a number of Wales-only Bills, so we do not require any further legislation. The right way forward is to allow Parliament to work with the Assembly to develop that successful model further, rather than establish over-prescriptive requirements in legislation. The way in which pre-legislative scrutiny is carried out is usually left to Parliament to decide, rather than being specified in legislation. Standing Orders, not legislation, are the appropriate means of dealing with that.
	Amendment No. 7, which was tabled by the Conservatives, would prevent Orders in Council that amend schedule 5 from being made before the Assembly election in 2007. The Bill provides for the early commencement of clauses 94 and 95 so that clarifying amendments can be made to schedule 5 before general commencement, should that prove necessary. For example, if one of the descriptions of fields or matters in schedule 5 is found to be insufficiently clear, an Order in Council under clause 94 could be proposed to clarify the extent of the field or matter. I am quite happy to place on record the fact that it is not intended that such Orders in Council should be used to confer wholly new legislative competence on the Assembly in advance of general commencement of the Bill following the 2007 election. Although the Bill provides that sections 94 and 95 will come into force on the day on which it is enacted, in fact, we would not carry out any functions under those sections for a period of two months following Royal Assent.
	Under amendments Nos. 59 to 61, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott), Parliament cannot be written out of the process of approving draft Orders in Council. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was quite rightthe amendments would mean that there would be no parliamentary scrutiny of Orders in Council. It is not acceptable for the Assembly to vote itself additional powers. It is for Parliament to decide whether it is appropriate to confer legislative competence on the Assembly. Parliament has the right to legislate in relation to Wales, so it has the right to decide whether to allow another legislature to do so.
	Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 would leave the Secretary of State with a vestigial role in the process. He or she would receive notice of a draft Order in Council approved by the Assembly, but he or she could do no more than sit on it for up to 30 days before having to return it to the Clerk of the Assembly, who would submit the draft Order for approval by Her Majesty in Council. There would not be any scrutiny by Parliament. The amendments illustrate the dangers of starting to unpick the Bill's provisions. If the Assembly could give itself legislative competence, what opportunity would there be to challenge it? I assume that the 30 day-provision is designed to cater for that, but it is a most unsatisfactory way of tackling the issue. I therefore urge hon. Members who have tabled amendments in this group not to press them any further.

Dominic Grieve: I suspect that the Minister and I agree on one thingamendment No. 59 encapsulates the criticism that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made of the Liberal Democrats. When faced with a difficult choice, they decided that the best way to proceed was to eliminate all form of democratic scrutiny from the legislation to enable the Secretary of State to have a free hand with the Assembly without any intervention from Parliament in part 3. I do not know whether they intend to press their amendment to a vote, but I wish to concentrate on amendment No. 4.
	The Minister has been wholly unpersuasive on the matter. One of the most telling comments that we have heard during the debate was the confession made for the first time by the Government that they considered that part 4 would not pass a referendum in Wales. Regrettable though that might be to my right hon. Friend and others, it highlights the absurdity of the Government proceeding by means of part 3. The justification offered to the House was that the Assembly would otherwise wither on the vine, whereas in fact it can have a perfectly respectable and separate existence implementing secondary legislation, if that is what the people of Wales want. There is no reason why the Executive cannot be split from the Legislature in order to improve that, which is why we supported the part of the Bill which does exactly that.
	Our position is that in the absence of an assurance from the Government that there would be a referendum on the implementation of part 3, the only proper course of action is to remove part 3 from the Bill entirely. The people of Wales will lose nothing thereby. Part 4 offers them real change if they want it. The other parts of the Bill, particularly the splitting of the Assembly and the Legislature, offer them a new format for governance along current lines, if that is what they want. Part 3 should have no place in the Bill, and I urge every hon. Member in the House to support us in opposing it. If we do not succeed in removing part 3, I hope at the appropriate moment later this evening to press new clause 1 to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 337.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 92
	  
	 Assembly Measures

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 50, line 14, leave out 'proceedings of the Assembly' and insert 'Assembly proceedings'.[Nick Ainger.]

Clause 94
	  
	Legislative competence: supplementary

Amendment proposed: No. 60, in page 51, line 38, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert
	'(7)   The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 30 days beginning immediately after the day on which notice of the Assembly's resolution is received, submit the draft to the Clerk.
	(8)   It is for the Clerk to submit draft Orders in Council for approval by Her Majesty in Council.'.[Jenny Willott.]
	The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 275.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 101
	  
	Approval of proposed Assembly Measures

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 56, line 18, after 'by' insert 'or by virtue of'.[Nick Ainger.]

Clause 106
	  
	Acts of the Assembly

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 58, line 15, leave out 'proceedings of the Assembly' and insert 'Assembly proceedings'.[Nick Ainger.]

Clause 107
	  
	Legislative competence

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 58, line 37, leave out 'or Assembly Measure'.
	No. 38, in page 58, line 38, after '(4)' insert
	'or a provision of an Assembly Measure'.[Nick Ainger.]

Clause 114
	  
	Royal Assent

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 63, line 6, at end insert
	'(7)   The validity of an Act of the Assembly is not affected by any failure to comply with provision made by or by virtue of subsection (4), (5) or (6).'.[Nick Ainger.]

Clause 120
	  
	Borrowing by Welsh Ministers

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 65, line 19, after 'Treasury' insert 'may'.[Nick Ainger.]

Schedule 8
	  
	Auditor General for Wales

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 133, line 39, after 'Ministers', insert ', the Counsel General'.[Nick Ainger.]

Clause 147
	  
	Meaning of Welsh public records

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 79, line 42, leave out paragraph (a).
	No. 42, in page 80, line 15, after second 'of', insert
	'the Assembly or the Assembly Commission or records of'.[Nick Ainger.]

Clause 152
	  
	Power to vary retrospective decisions

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 83, line 17, after 'competence' insert
	'(b)   that any provision of subordinate legislation made, or purporting to be made, under an Assembly Measure or Act of the Assembly is outside the powers under which it was, or purported to be, made,'.[Nick Ainger.]

Clause 157
	  
	Interpretation

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 85, line 43, at end insert
	'(but see also subsection (1A)).'.
	No. 45, in page 86, line 18, at end insert
	'(1A)   In sections 94(3), 108(2) and 150(2) enactment includes an Act of the Scottish Parliament and an instrument made under such an Act.'.[Nick Ainger.]

Schedule 10
	  
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 152, line 17, at end insert
	', and
	(b)   in paragraph (a), after other than insert the National Assembly for Wales Commission,.'.[Nick Ainger.]

Clause 160
	  
	Commencement

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 89, line 23, at end insert 'and Schedule 5'.[Nick Ainger.]

Schedule 11
	  
	Transitional Provisions

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 170, line 31, leave out 'such power instead' and insert
	'instead power to pass Assembly Measures in relation to that matter in the same terms as the relevant Assembly function or in terms differing from those terms to such extent as appears appropriate.'.
	No. 49, in page 175, line 7, after 'made' insert 'before'.
	No. 50, in page 176, line 17, at end insert
	
		
			  
			 Section 75(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (c. 43), if exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to require prescribed persons to provide explanation of documents etc. 
			 Section 96 of that Act, if exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to confer additional functions in relation to Welsh local authority social services. 
			 Section 101(1) of that Act, if exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to require prescribed persons to provide explanation of documents etc. 
			 Section 33(3)(a)(ii) of the Higher Education Act 2004 (c. 8). Power to require institutions' plans to include provision relating to promotion of higher education. 
			 Section 12(2) of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23). Power to add to definition of local government body in Wales. 
			 Section 39(1) of that Act, if exercised so as to include a declaration that a contravention is an offence. Power to make provision about publication etc. of accounts. 
			 Section 46(2) of that Act. Power to apply sections 47 to 49 to other local government bodies. 
			 Section 47(5) of that Act. Power to shorten period within which body must publish information. 
		
	
	No. 51, in page 177, line 24, at end insert
	
		
			  
			 Section 45D of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31). Power to repeal school funding provisions. 
			 Paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 7 to that Act. Power to prescribe content and form of publication of proposals. 
			 Paragraph 12(2)(d) of Schedule 7 to that Act. Power to prescribe period within which objections to proposals may be made. 
			 Paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 7 to that Act. Power to make transitional exemption order relating to proposal for school to cease to be single sex. 
			 Paragraph 13B(1) of Schedule 26 to that Act. Power to prescribe period within which nursery inspection report must be made. 
		
	
	No. 52, in page 177, line 36, at end insert
	
		
			  
			 Section 77(4) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21). Power to prescribe period within which report must be made. 
			 Section 83(7) of that Act. Power to make further provision about obligation to provide information. 
			 Section 128(4)(b) and (c) of that Act. Power about statement of proposed action. 
			 Section 109(6)(b) of the Transport Act 2000 (c. 38). Power to specify date by which deemed local transport plan to be replaced. 
			 Section 24(4) and (5) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Provisions Act 2002 (c. 17). Power relating to health and well-being strategies. 
			 Section 102 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32). Power to specify period which is foundation stage. 
			 Section 108(2)(a) of that Act. Power to specify areas of learning in respect of foundation stage. 
			 Section 139(1) of that Act. Power to approve institutions to provide course of higher education etc. 
			 Section 192 of that Act. Power to prescribe content and manner of publication of proposals to secure regional provision. 
			 Section 193 of that Act. Power to make provision about proposals to secure regional provision. 
			 Section 197 of that Act. Power relating to partnership agreements and statements. 
			 Section 198 of that Act. Power relating to transition from primary to secondary school. 
			 Section 207(4) of that Act. Power relating to adjustments between local education authorities. 
		
	
	No. 53, in page 178, line 18, at end insert
	
		
			  
			 Section 75(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (c. 43), unless exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to require prescribed persons to provide explanation of documents etc. 
			 Section 96 of that Act, unless exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to confer additional functions in relation to Welsh local authority social services. 
			 Section 101(1) of that Act, unless exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to require prescribed persons to provide explanation of documents etc. 
		
	
	No. 54, in page 178, line 34, at end insert
	
		
			  
			 Section 30(1)(b) of the Higher Education Act 2004 (c. 8). Power to designate relevant authority. 
			 Section 38(2) of that Act. Power to prescribe maximum period during which relevant authority can refuse to approve institution's new plan. 
			 Section 18(2)(c) of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23). Power to specify documents to which right of access applies. 
			 Section 21(1) of that Act. Power to replace scale of audit fees. 
			 Section 39(1) of that Act, unless exercised so as to include a declaration that a contravention is an offence. Power to make provision about publication etc. of accounts. 
			 Section 52(2)(c) of that Act. Power to specify documents to which right of access applies. 
			 Section 29 of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31). Power relating to information databases. 
			 Section 31 of that Act. Power relating to Local Safeguarding Children Boards. 
			 Section 32 of that Act. Power to prescribe functions and procedures of Boards. 
			 Section 34 of that Act. Power to make provision about functions of children's services authorities relating to boards. 
		
	
	No. 55, in page 179, line 37, leave out 'paragraph 27 has effect.' and insert
	'the end of the initial period.'.[Nick Ainger.]

New Clause 2
	  
	referendum not to be held more than ten years after passing of act

'No Order in Council under section 102(1) may be made after the expiration of the period of ten years after the passing of this Act.'. [David Mundell.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Mundell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13Interval between referendums
	'No Order in Council under section 102 (1) (other than the first such Order in Council) may be made until four years have elapsed after the referendum held by virtue of the previous Order in Council under subsection (1).'.

David Mundell: During our debates on the preceding amendments, it was said that, if a referendum were held, it would be lost and that the Government therefore did not plan to hold one. However, the Bill places no time limit on holding such a referendum. Although the Secretary of State said that he intended the measure to settle the constitutional situation in Wales for a generation, it cannot be right that there is no end position about holding a referendum. Foresight in government and in legislation is always important, but we could be legislating for something that took place in 20 or 30 years, when it could not be described as depending on specific circumstances. That is inappropriate and it is why we have tabled the new clause.
	The new clause clearly provides that if a referendum on giving the National Assembly full law-making powers such as those set out in part 4 had not been held after 10 years, fresh legislation would be required. There is good reason for that. We are legislating on the basis of a referendum that we are already told would be lost. There is no logic in requiring that to happen in 15, 20 or more years.
	The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary conceded that a referendum would be lost. The Secretary of State said that he did not anticipate holding a referendum for the rest of the decade. We therefore propose 10 years as a reasonable period in which to allow a referendum to take place. It is not unreasonable to ask Parliament to reconsider the matter if a referendum has not happened in 10 years. If the Secretary of State and the Government are sincere about presenting the argument to persuade the people of Wales to take forward, through the Assembly, the powers in part 4, they could do that, by any reasonable reckoning, in 10 years.

Mark Tami: If one provides for a specified periodwhether five or 10 yearsdoes not the hon. Gentleman believe that, when one approaches it, an impetus would be created that perhaps would not exist if the normal process were followed?

David Mundell: Unless I misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, his intervention is an argument for the new clause, which provides that a referendum should take place in a fixed time period to focus minds on the matter, rather than some nebulous, distant provision. As many speakers have said, there is a lack of clarity about the Government's intentions. Do they want to increase powers and put the Welsh Assembly on the same footing as the Scottish Parliament, or are they simply conducting a smoke-and-mirrors exercise? The fact that they do not have the confidence to hold a referendum now or in 10 years leads me to suspect that there is no will in the Government or the Labour party in Wales to campaign on the issues in part 4. Unless the Under-Secretary says something new and surprising, we are not minded to accept an open-ended provision and we shall press the new clause to a Division. He may surprise us with something that gives us comfort or hopewe shall wait and see.
	New clause 13 is about the frequency of referendums and its purpose is clear. It would prevent a further referendum on part 4 powers from taking place for at least four years after the date of the first one. It would thus prevent the Assembly from simply holding repeat referendums at regular intervals until the desired result was achieved. We believe that if a referendum on part 4 powers is held and the vote is no, the result should trigger a period of reflection.
	A minimum interval of four years means that only one referendum could be held during an Assembly term. Any further referendums would have to be endorsed by the people of Wales at an Assembly election. We have heard much during our proceedings about the importance of election results in ascertaining the views of the people of Wales. It is therefore appropriate that they should have a say about whether a further referendum should be conducted shortly after a previous one.
	I am not fully au fait with the details of the repeat referendums in Quebec in the 1970s and 1980s, but asking the same question repeatedly until the public are ground down, through a war of attrition, either to vote in a particular way or to turn out in low numbers is unsatisfactory. It is possible to envisage repeat referendums being used for political purposes rather than for taking forward the constitutional arrangements for Wales or for the enhancement of the Welsh Assembly.
	Both the new clauses are fair and reasonable in the context of the Bill, and in the context of the debate about the appropriateness of holding referendums. As has been stated in the debates on previous amendments, the logic remains that a referendum should be held under the part 4 arrangements as soon as the legislation is passed, so that the people of Wales can give their view straight away. The matter would then be settled for a significant period. However, the Government are clearly not minded to do that and, in those circumstances, we would want to establish a process to ensure that there was a cap on the period in which a referendum had to be held. For the reasons that I have set out, we suggest a period of 10 years. In addition, new clause 13 would prevent the possibility of holding repeat referendums.

Nick Ainger: The practical effect of new clause 2 would be to ensure that a referendum under the terms of the Bill could not be called by Order in Council more than 10 years after the Bill had received Royal Assent. It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) that I cannot accept that such an arbitrary time limit on the possibility of enacting the part 4 provisions is necessary. Those provisions do not have a use-by date.
	Under the Bill, the timing of a referendum would have to be considered and agreed on by a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and by both Houses of Parliament. That consideration by democratically elected bodies, and not an arbitrary 10-year time limit in the Bill, will ensure that the referendum is held at an appropriate time. The Secretary of State has said that he cannot see a referendum happening before 2011, because it makes sense to see how the provisions enabling the Assembly to make measures bed down first. I cannot predict at this stage exactly when a referendum should be held, and it would be inappropriate for me to say that a referendum should be held within 10 years, or not at all.
	New clause 13 is aimed directly at ensuring that there would have to be a gap of four years between any referendum and an Order in Council calling for a further referendum. The fact that a referendum can be held only with the agreement of two thirds of the Assembly, the Secretary of State and both Houses of Parliamentall of whom would be aware of the financial and political cost of frequent repeated referendumsis safeguard enough in this respect. I fully agree that frequent referendums under the Bill would be counter-productive. However, the process for approving a call for a referendum that is built into the Bill will ensure that referendums are not called repeatedly for no good reason. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

David Mundell: As we anticipated, the Minister's response contained no surprises. I hope that he is correct about the issues raised by new clause 13, and that fiscal prudence, if nothing else, will prevent the repeated use of referendums. However, given that referendums have been called repeatedly in other jurisdictions when the political climate has been ripe for them, I do not believe that the possibility can be ruled out. I would have preferred to see the new clause being accepted.
	I am not in the least satisfied by the Minister's response to my arguments on new clause 2. I do not believe that 10 years is an arbitrary period. I had understood that the Government were now going to promote the concept of sunset clauses in legislation. A period must necessarily be determined in which to hold the referendum, and 10 years is a fair period to choose. Circumstances could change significantly in that time, and if the Government and the Welsh Assembly were not confident that they could secure a majority in a referendum 10 years after the passage of the Bill, it would be appropriate to revisit the legislation and examine the issues relating to the powers involved. One reason for a lack of confidence in the result of a referendum might be to do with the nature and structure of the proposed legislation. On that basis, I intend to press new clause 2 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 324.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 11
	  
	Allocation of funds

'(1)   The Secretary of State shall appoint a panel of not less than four and not more than six experts to recommend the sums of money to be allocated to the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
	(2)   The Secretary of State shall publish in full the terms of any recommendations made under subsection (1).
	(3)   The panel shall have regard to
	(a)   the principle of fairness,
	(b)   the principle of transparency, and
	(c)   the particular needs of Wales.'.[Lembit pik.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Lembit �pik: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and her colleagues for speaking so briefly on the preceding new clauses.
	New clause 11 deals with the allocation of funds. It returns us to the age-old debate, which I have initiated many times over the past nine years, about the principles of fairness, transparency and a needs-based formula for conveying money to the Welsh Assembly and thus to the Welsh people. Currently, as all Members know, we have the Barnett formula, which is so discredited that Barnett himselfthe inventor of the formulasays that he is ashamed to be associated with it. It was good for its time but its time has long gone, and for that reason we Liberal Democrats propose new clause 11, which would require the Secretary of State to
	appoint a panel of not less than four and not more than six experts to recommend the sums of money to be allocated to the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
	The Secretary of State would also be required to publish in full the terms of any funding recommendations made by the panel. Moreover, the panel would have specific regard to
	the principle of fairness . . . the principle of transparency . . . and . . . the particular needs of Wales.
	The problem is that the Barnett formula is not needs-based and does not take account of the social and economic conditions of Wales. Furthermore, it has random unintended consequences that create difficulties in allocating funds to Welsh expenditure. If we compare what Wales is given with what it needs, it is clear that it often loses out. The levels of deprivation in Wales and its economic circumstances are often quite different from those in the rest of the UK. So our request is very simple: that the Government take on board a recommendation that has come from all quarters, including from the inventor of the existing formula himself; and that, for once, they listen to recommendationsmade, on this occasion, by Opposition politiciansbased on common sense.

Cheryl Gillan: The other day, the First Minister said that Wales has 5 per cent. of the UK's population and makes 4 per cent. of its income but receives 6 per cent. of that income. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage improving those figures through his new clause, or worsening them?

Lembit �pik: We are not seeking to gerrymander the formula in favour of Wales; rather we are trying to ensure that it is fair to Walesand, for that matter, to Scotland and Northern Irelandby it being needs-based. We have to take the chance that, as Wales prospers under a Liberal Democrat Administration, its funding will be less because its needs will be less. But so far as we are concerned, this is not about begging bowls and asking for more; rather, we are asking for fairness. As the new clause makes clear,
	fairness . . . transparency . . . and the particular needs of Wales
	are the right bases on which to allocate funds.
	In conclusion, I look forward to hearing what the Minister and others have to say. I hope that he will say that he has been persuaded by the argumentsarguments that have been made many times beforeand that he will incorporate the new clause. If he does, he will be a hero not just to the Liberal Democrats but to the people of Wales. If he does not, he will stand condemned alongside other Ministers who have shown a similar unwillingness to demonstrate the ability to listen that this listening Government so often claim for themselves.

Cheryl Gillan: I was not going to speak to this new clauseuntil I heard what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) had to say, whereupon I was forced to my feet. I am sorry to say that if he presses it to a vote, I will be unable to recommend to my hon. Friends that they support him, not least because of the wishy-washy nature of subsection (3). [Interruption.] Someone said Surely not from a sedentary position, but
	the principle of fairness . . . the principle of transparency . . . and . . . the particular needs of Wales
	is fairly wishy-washy and imprecise language, as I anticipate the Minister will agree.
	This is possibly a good-hearted attempted by the Liberal Democrats and I do want to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, who is probably leading with his heart but certainly not with his head. As he just said, if, under this new and magic formula Wales gets less money, well, so be it. Of course, much as that might appeal to people in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, I doubt whether the people of Wales would be very happy to discover such an attitude toward the support that they receive. As I pointed out earlier, the First Minister has said that he supports the current situation. I therefore doubt very much whether the Government will accept the new clauseparticularly given that it has not been planted and then moved by a Labour Back Bencher, but has genuinely come from the Liberal Democratsbecause doing so would put them directly at odds with the First Minister.

David Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is obviously taking a view in her capacity as shadow Secretary of State for Wales, but does she not think that a fairer and more transparent system would be in the interests of many of the English constituents whom she and I represent?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps in danger of being ruled out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] You are indeed nodding, and we are not going to go down that route. We are not discussing the English regions, much, of course, to his chagrin; rather, we are discussing Wales and the people of Wales and what is best for them.
	Although the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has tabled the new clause with hope in his heart, to be fair to the people of Wales, he is probably doing them a great disservice in doing so. If he presses it to a vote, I will be unable to support it.

Adam Price: I am disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)who has been gracious, as eversay that, unfortunately, the Conservatives will not support the new clause, despite the spirit of revisionism that seems to be blowing through their party as we speak. This is an opportunity for us to raise the hugely important question of the Barnett formula, which is a non-statutory formula. Indeed, this is one of the few opportunities that we have had in recent years to force a vote on this issue, which, notwithstanding law-making powers and the various other important matters that we have been discussing, is probably the single most important determinant of the Assembly's and the Assembly Government's ability to improve the lives of the people of Wales.
	The Barnett formula is a convergent formula: over time, it results in a fall in the relative position of public expenditure per capita in Wales, compared with England. For example, only six years agoin 19992000the public expenditure per capita index figure for devolved services in Wales was 115. Now, it has fallen to 112, which is a very significant relative fall over that period. That process will continue until we reach the point at which Wales and England are exactly the same, even though there is no guarantee that the level of need in Wales and Englandthe economic and social positionwill be identical. That is why we must support the principle of a needs-based formula.

Cheryl Gillan: This matter is far too important to be discussed in the dying minutes of consideration on Report. It demands full and fair examination at another point, and in that regard I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). Before I paint myself into a corner, let me reiterate that this issue needs discussion, but not at 19 minutes past 8 o'clock, with a guillotine about to fall at 8.30.

Adam Price: I accept that and look forward to the Conservative party devoting one of its Opposition days to a call for the revision of the Barnett formula. We would support such a motion, as we will support the Liberal Democrats in the Lobby tonight. This matter is far too important to be left to party politics.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, and said that he supported the Barnett formula. I am sure that he does now, but in 1997 he told the Treasury Committee that the formula was detrimental to Wales. Moreover, he said in an interview with John Humphrys that the formula was
	putting a lot of pressure on expenditure in Wales. We now cannot keep up with the percentage increases in health and education that the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Employment are doing in England.
	That shows that the First Minister at that time supported our proposals. As has happened all too often, however, he has failed to support our position now.
	The Government claim that there is no evidence for the position adopted by my party and others, but there is plenty, and the amount is growing. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said, even the formula's progenitor agrees that it is long overdue for revision. If we do not act now, we will continue to suffer.
	I appeal to Labour Memberswe must move away from the Barnett formula. It is detrimental to Wales, and Northern Ireland is also beginning to suffer from the effects of the Barnett squeeze. The problem will continue to get worse, unless and until we get a proper formula that is fair to the nations of these islands and to the regions of England. It is a matter of territorial justice; for example, per capital expenditure on public services in some parts of the south-west region of England is very low. We need a root and branch reform of the allocation of finances in these islands.

Kevin Brennan: The problem with new clause 11 is that it would set up a panel of so-called experts to make recommendations about the Welsh block grant. In other words, it would create another new quango to determine how much money would be devoted to public expenditure in Wales.
	The Barnett formula has been used for some time to determine public expenditure in Wales, and has produced significant increases in that expenditure, but the quango created by the new clause would make recommendations in isolation from the rest of the UK. It would not pay heed to fairness, transparency and the particular needs of Waleslanguage that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) described as wishy-washy.
	Essentially, the new clause would adjust public expenditure in Wales according to the views of the panel of experts, but in isolation from what was happening with public expenditure in the rest of the UK. However, funding public expenditure in Wales cannot be separated from what happens in the UK as a whole. I think that hon. Members recognise that, although the new clause does not.
	No rational system of resource allocation for public expenditure could ever consider funding the needs of one part of the UK in isolation from the whole, as that would make it impossible to manage any logical process for setting budgets. The Barnett formula is operated by the Treasury, and it determines the funding allocations for Northern Ireland and Scotland as well as for Wales. However, this Bill deals only with Wales, and so is inappropriate for the new clause's proposal to abandon the Barnett formula in respect of Wales alone and replace it with a new system for allocating public expenditure there.
	The Barnett formula has been criticised by various hon. Members, but it has worked well in practice. It has provided a stable and secure financial context, and allowed the National Assembly to plan public expenditure with some confidence. The National Assembly has received financial settlements without the need for lengthy annual negotiations with the Treasury. The Barnett formula is a relatively simple mechanism, whereby money is allocated to the National Assembly in a way that is open, transparent and comprehensible to the people of Wales.
	The Barnett formula ensures that changes to planned public expenditure on comparable services in England are properly reflected in the budget in Wales. The formula will provide average growth of more than 4 per cent. each year in the period since the spending review of 2004. All public institutions must be realistic and work within a fixed budget. They have to concentrate on the outcomes of the use of public money, and not just on the quantum figure, important though that is.
	The National Assembly Government are committed to providing quality public services, using the funding provided through the Barnett formula. As a result of that process, the Assembly budget has risen from less than 8 billion in 1999 to more than 14 billion in 200708. That means that the budget has almost doubled in that period.
	I confirm that the Government have no plans to review the Barnett formula, which has served the UK very effectively. In practice, it has produced reasonably fair settlements, and we will continue to monitor its operation to ensure that it is being applied properly and rigorously. Clearly, the mechanism has some advantages in the context of devolved government, and indeed it was developed originally by Joel Barnett in the 1970s when the question of devolution was first visited.
	The Barnett formula is simple to understand, and provides the degree of stability that is essential in the consequential flow of resources to Wales. It also allows Administrations a considerable degree of freedom when it comes to making spending decisions. The Government have looked carefully at the matter, but we have concluded that there is no advantage in reopening the question of the Barnett formula at this time.
	New clause 11 is well meaning, but would be unworkable in practice. It would create yet another quango, and mean that decisions about public expenditure in Wales would be made outside the context of such decisions in respect of the rest of the UK.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that the funding calculation was too important to be decided in the dying moments of the Report stage of this Bill. We agree, which is why we tabled the new clause. We are suggesting that the experts should say how we decide the formulation. We all agree that there are flaws in the system, and the Liberal Democrats feel that the flaws are so significant that we should change the formula.
	The hon. Lady also quoted the First Minister in defence of the existing formulation, but we have heard from the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) that the First Minister himself has criticised the formula on other occasions, when it suited him to do so. We cannot pretend that he has any consistent form on the issue.
	Ranting a series of numbers at the Opposition is not a sufficient defence of the existing formulation. This is not about specific figures, but about fairness and transparency. I must point out to the Minister that it is obvious that when we talk about the principle of fairness, that has to be seen in the context of the UK. When we talk about the principle of transparency, that has to be seen alongside the principle of collective decision making, not as some isolationist approach for Wales. And when we talk about the particular needs of Wales, of course we have to think about the needs of the rest of the UK as well. For those reasons, the Minister should recognise the strength of feeling that many of us have in favour of a changeand that is why I need to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 281.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being after half-past Eight o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [27 February].

New Clause 12
	  
	Business scheme

'(1)   The Welsh Ministers must make a scheme (the business scheme) setting out how they propose, in the exercise of their functions, to take account of the interests of business.
	(2)   The business scheme must specify how the Welsh Ministers propose
	(a)   to carry out consultation about the exercise of such of their functions as relate to matters affecting the interests of business, and
	(b)   to consider the impact of the exercise of their functions on the interests of business.
	(3)   The Welsh Ministers
	(a)   must keep the business scheme under review, and
	(b)   may from time to time remake or revise it.
	(4)   Before making, remaking or revising the business scheme, the Welsh Ministers must consult such organisations representative of business (including trade unions) and such other organisations as they consider appropriate.
	(5)   The Welsh Ministers must publish the business scheme when they make it and whenever they remake it; and, if they revise the scheme without remaking it, they must publish either the revisions or the scheme as revised (as they consider appropriate).
	(6)   If the Welsh Ministers publish a scheme or revisions under subsection (5) they must lay a copy of the scheme or revisions before the Assembly.
	(7)   The Welsh Ministers must
	(a)   within the period of two years beginning with the day on which the business scheme is first made, and
	(b)   subsequently at intervals of no more than two years,
	publish a report of how the proposals set out in the business scheme have been implemented.
	(8)   The Welsh Ministers must lay before the Assembly a copy of each report published under subsection (7).'.[Huw Irranca-Davies.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Peter Hain: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	If I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, to have a daughter of Wales in the Chair at this time is indeed most appropriate.
	St. David's day, tomorrow, sees the official opening of the inspirational new Assembly building in Cardiff baythe very same building where the Bill was launched only two and a half months ago. A truly iconic building that has attracted architectural acclaim from all over the world, I have no doubt that it will become a powerful symbol of the new Wales. With the Bill now empowering the Assembly to be bolder and more ambitious than ever before, the people of Wales have all the more reason to feel proud.
	Devolution and decentralisation of power have been watchwords of the Labour Government. Just as one of our first acts in 1997 was to bring forward proposals for an Assembly for Wales, so we have moved swiftly in our third term to build on the success of devolution. Once again, that destroys the myth that any party other than Labour is the true party of devolution. It was a Labour Government who appointed the first ever Secretary of State for Wales. It was a Labour Government who broadened and deepened the role of the then Welsh Office. It was a Labour Government who passed the first Welsh Language Act in 1967 and it was a Labour Government who called the 1997 referendum and then passed legislation for a democratically elected Assembly for Wales.
	No other party has come anywhere near to delivering so much for Wales. Indeed, no other party has ever delivered any devolution for Wales. So as we commemorate 100 years of the parliamentary Labour party, we can be truly proud that devolution, one of the ideals of our first parliamentary leader, Keir Hardie, has not only been achieved, but is being improved. Once again, it is Labour and only Labour that is delivering on devolution.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales for his sterling work on the Bill. After four years of silence in the confines of the Whips Office, his voice has been heard during the five days of consideration that the House has given to the Bill. He has dealt patiently and diligently with the issues that Members have raised.
	I should also like to express my appreciation of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who, notwithstanding his role as a Whip, has also been able to assist in the progress of the Bill from the Front Bench. Similarly, I thank my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who has supported me with his customary energy and enthusiasmthe quietest man in the House. Above all, I thank my excellent team of hard-working officials, drawn from both the Welsh Assembly and our own Wales Officea partnership in action.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), who, with the members of his Select Committee, produced a report on the Bill that helped to inform our deliberations. As I have said previously, I envisage his Committee playing a very significant role in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed Orders in Council that will come before the House by virtue of the proposals contained in part 3. Such pre-scrutiny is crucial, and it will be open to all Members to submit written evidence for consideration, or even to seek to give oral testimony if they so prefer.
	I am glad that we have been able to subject the Bill to detailed scrutiny, through some 33 hours of debate on the Floor of the House. The House will be aware that the vast bulk of the Bill was either modelled closely on the Government of Wales Act 1998, or modelled on other statutory provisions that have worked effectively. The finance provisions, for example, draw heavily on those in the Scotland Act 1998. Those 141 clauses have broad cross-party support. I am therefore particularly pleased that the House was able to concentrate its scrutiny on those parts of the Bill that are genuinely newthe 24 clauses on enhanced and primary powers and our proposed electoral changes. Those are clearly the most significant parts of the Bill, and I am pleased that they have been given such thorough consideration.
	One thing that has not survived the scrutiny of the House is the credibility of the Opposition and their new, supposedly more constructive stance on devolution. First, they tried to scupper the Bill at the outset by tabling a reasoned amendment on Second Reading, and I am told that they may even vote against the Bill on Third Reading. Then they attempted to construct a process of 16 locks to hamper the Assembly acquiring enhanced legislative powers. Then we saw them try to insist on a referendum before Parliament could grant the Assembly even a modest extension of its legislative powers through the Order-in-Council process. Then they tabled amendments that would have reduced the democratically elected Assembly to little more than a Committee of Parliament.
	Finally, the Opposition tried to strike enhanced powers out of the Bill altogether, even though such powers were a clear Labour election manifesto commitment. It is hard to square that approach with the view of their leader, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who says that he wants to make devolution work. It is even harder to reconcile that with his opinion that, on devolution, the Tories share the views of the Liberal Democrats. They called themselves liberal Conservatives in the recent Scottish by-election. Well, there is not much liberal about their attitude to Wales. I thought the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) would bring a new approach; instead, she has played the same old Tory gramophone record of suspicion and hostility to more powers for Wales.
	On dual candidacy, we have learned that the Opposition are against the ban because, as the shadow Attorney-General told us, they
	wish to maximise the chance of getting their chosen people into the Assembly.[Official Report, 30 January 2006; Vol. 442, c. 112.]
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) was worried that such a reform would make life tougher for weak Tory candidates. The Government's view remains that such matters are for the electorate, rather than the political parties, to determine, so we intend to put the voters back in charge by requiring candidates to choose between the constituency and the list seats and by removing the ability of candidates to guarantee election for themselves regardless of the voters' verdict. There will be no more each-way bets at the voters' expense.
	We have made great progress in Wales since the establishment of the Assembly, through a strong partnership between our UK Government and Rhodri Morgan's Labour Welsh Assembly Government. Wales has a strong economy, more jobs, rising prosperity, better hospitals and better schools, but it still has huge challenges to face. Levels of economic inactivity are still far too high. Welsh industry is facing tough global economic competition. Although crime is falling compared with the situation under the Conservative Government, it must be reduced still further, and antisocial behaviour must be combated. We also face important decisions on energy policy to cut costs, guarantee security of supply and keep Wales clean and green. By giving the Assembly the means, through the Bill, to respond to those huge challenges, we will enable Welsh politics to focus on policy delivery, rather than debate about more or fewer powers.
	The Bill will settle the constitutional debate in Wales for a generation. For the first time ever, it places full law-making powers for Wales on the statute book. It also recognises the need to proceed by consensus, requiring a referendum while providing a path towards primary powers when that consensus emerges. Some argue that that does not go far enough and that we should move to a referendum immediately. All I say to them is: remember what happened in 1979. The defeat then set back the cause of devolution for a generation. Even in 1997, when all the parties except the Tories were united, we only just squeaked home. I have no doubt that if a referendum were held today, it would be lost. Indeed, I cannot see it happening before the end of this decade.
	I urge all supporters of primary powers, of whom I am one, to recognise the need for consensus. The Bill provides a route to primary powers, but places the responsibility on supporters of primary powers to go out there, build a consensus and win the argument. In the meantime, the Bill develops the existing devolution settlement by conferring enhanced legislative powers on the Assemblywhile ensuring that Parliament remains in overall controland giving it greater discretion to determine the detail of Welsh legislation. That streamlined procedure will enable the Assembly to break free from the Westminster logjam, while ensuring that the final say remains with Parliament just as it does today, as was endorsed in the 1997 referendum. The Bill also means that the Assembly will start to gain new powers from 2007four years earlier than the Richard commission recommended.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), whom I commend for his insightful contributions during the course of our deliberations on the Bill, has referred to the views of the man in Splott market. I am sure that he would agree that the true test of devolution is whether it enables us to deliver positive benefits and lasting changes to the lives of our constituents, whether they be in Cardiff, Pontypool, Neath or Holyhead. The Bill will enable the Assembly to achieve exactly that. It is right at the political centre of gravity in Wales. It provides for better, more responsive, more accountable Welsh government and helps us to build a world-class Wales.
	The Bill will provide a lasting constitutional settlement for Wales. It establishes a flexible constitutional architecture that will adapt to Wales's changing needs over the years to come. It is designed to endure. Whatever changing circumstances we face over the coming years, there will be no case for a successor Government of Wales Bill in the decades to comethis really is it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Cheryl Gillan: I offer the Secretary of State and all Welsh Members my best wishes for St. David's day tomorrow. I was at a delightful service earlier today in St. Mary Undercroft with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. Together with the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott), we had the privilege of contributing to the service to celebrate St. David's day. I was sporting a daffodil at that stage, but I am not now because I gave it to a little girlI think from the London Welsh schoolwho was also performing at the service. I thought that that was rather nice because she was able to take it home to her mother. I notice that Members on the Labour Front Bench are already wearing their daffodils, but that the Secretary of State's daffodil is wilting rather badly. That, I hope, is a reflection on Labour's fortunes in Wales, particularly after this Bill.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for their assistance on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) argued with great erudition, particularly on using Orders in Council to delegate law making to secondary legislation. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. He is exact and precise, and he has not found his equal at the Dispatch Box in the Under-Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who I think is taking a well earned break, having been on the Bench alongside me for many hours, has argued from a position of great knowledge on devolution, particularly in Scotland. It is sad that the arguments made by Opposition Members have been swept aside by the Government and given little credence.
	There have been valuable contributions from Opposition Members. I draw attention in particular to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I am pleased to note that the three Conservative Members with Welsh seats have all participated in the proceedings on the Bill. I wish that the same could be said for Labour Members with Welsh seats, not all of whom, I am afraid, have taken an active part or interest in the passage of the Bill.
	I started on Second Reading with a positive attitude towards the Bill. There were some aspects on which we agreed with the Government and others that we drew to their attention in the hope that they would rethink their proposals. We purposely did not vote against Second Reading, but chose to highlight the problem areas of the legislation with a reasoned amendment, which we used expressly to launch our concerns about some of the matters in the Bill. With the new, strong intention of my party to try to make devolution work for the people of Wales, I had hoped that the Government would respond positively to our concerns, but that has not been the case.
	We see successful devolution depending not only on the support of the people but on some broad political consensus, requiring in turn constructive dialogue between the political parties. We have seen little or none of that during the Bill's passage, and I notice that the other Opposition parties also received scant responses to their points. They have been swept aside and ignored by the Labour machine, which cannot bear to be questioned on any part of the Bill.
	In fact, the only amendments that have been accepted are those tabled by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I will examine carefully what the Minister said about that, but that appeared to be a Government-placed new clause and amendment because they came as very little surprise to the Minister. [Interruption.] Yes, the new clause came from the CBI and the TUC, but it could just as easily have been tabled by the Government as by the hon. Member for Ogmore. I congratulate him on managing to at least produce some amendment to the Bill, which otherwise appears to be totally unamendableit has much in common with the Assembly Measures that it sets up.
	As the Bill has progressed, more issues have emerged, and even the Father of the House has expressed disquiet at some of the provisions. Various claims of support put forward by the Government have not prospered under close scrutiny, and it has become apparent that Labour is putting party politics before the interests of people in Wales. If we are to have a devolution arrangement in Wales that is built to last, we will need more thought and consultation with the people of Wales than is evidenced by this Bill, and all-party support as far as possible.
	Briefly, taking the parts in turn, on part 1 we agree with many of the provisions. However, the partisan way in which the Government have plucked out a change to the electoral arrangements to placate their own party members and against any clear advice from the Arbuthnott commission, the Electoral Commission, leading academics and even Labour-sponsored research projects, has made a mockery of their attitude toward the Assembly itself. Even there, a tied vote on that subject revealed that only Labour Assembly Members wanted the change, and in Divisions during our debates in this place, we have had the support of all the Opposition parties. A further change at this stage will undermine electoral confidence at a time when education of the electorate would seem to be the priority, in the interests of electors themselves. Furthermore, banning dual candidacy may impinge on candidates' human rights. I hope that the Members of the other place will look closely at those provisions, coupled with those in clause 11.
	We support and agree with the separation of powers of the Assembly and the Executive in part 2. That, in itself, would have justified a Bill that would have received all-party support of the sort that the Government should have sought on changes in the constitutional position of Wales.
	Part 3 is fraught with problems. It introduces the Order in Council provisions, which amount to primary legislation by the back door, to cure an alleged legislative blockage, which has not been proved under questioning. I do not know who is the author of that tortuous legislative route, but it cannot be one who has the best interests of the Assembly in his heart. The procedure is devolution by statutory instrumentor, as the Father of the House said, devolution by salami-slicing. It is a device for saying one thing to one audience and another thing to another, as was pointed out by Lord Richard, whose report has largely been pushed to one side. Lord Richard has expressed some major qualifications in respect of procedure, so I hope that he and his colleagues in the other House will examine the proposals, not least because, if viewed in conjunction with the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which moves the Executive away from traditional ways of legislating to Orders in Council, they lead me to believe that we need to exercise great caution about the ways in which we are changing our systems.
	We have argued that, if part 3 does indeed delegate the substantial powers to which the Secretary of State referred, that should be put to the people of Wales. Apparently, that is not a route that the Government are willing to take in respect of either the part 3 powers or the part 4 powers, unless and until they can win any referendum put to the electors. The Bill is not about consulting the people of Wales but about achieving a Labour agenda.
	The Secretary of State said that part 4 will settle the constitutional issue for a generationa claim that he repeated this evening. How can that be, when part 4 leaves the question of additional powers wide open? How can it be, when not even the number of MPs has been discussed, or the number of AMs that might be required if the Assembly takes on the full law-making powers set out in part 4? Some Labour Members have suggested that the whole electoral system should be reviewed; perhaps it would have been better to reflect on that.
	The Bill leaves the House with a lot of unfinished business and with a Government who are trying to create the impression that they are pro-Wales but, after scrutiny by Opposition parties, it has emerged that they are, in fact, purely pro-Labour. Claims have crumbled under scrutiny. The Secretary of State prayed in aid Lord Dahrendorf, Lord Holme and Sir John Arbuthnott, but his claims proved to be not strictly accurate. His claim that there is a legislative blockage hardly stood up to scrutiny, and his claim of abuse by AMs of the electoral system has not been substantiated. He has ignored the Richard commission, Assembly Members, the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society and leading academics to go his own way and produce legislation that means that the people of Wales will not be consulted at the right time and that will give more responsibility to the Labour Assembly Government before they have even got to grips with the responsibilities that they already have.
	The Assembly Government have not yet grasped the new local democracy with efficiency or effectiveness. They have broken promises to the electoratefor example, on free care for the disabled and free breakfasts for all primary school kids. They have ditched targets on economic matters, truancy rates and GCSE pass rates, and they have presided over huge increases in waiting lists for operations. That is to name only a few areas in which the performance of the Welsh Assembly Labour Government needs to be improved. To give the Labour Assembly Government more powers before they have flourished and got to grips with the difficult business of governing in areas already under their control is like suffocating the institution before it has embarked on its democratic journey. Faith in the Labour Assembly Government is fragile. Turnout fell at the last Assembly elections by 8 per cent. to 36 per cent., and the Electoral Commission said that that was the result of a lack of awareness of the role of the Assembly and a growing disconnection between the politicians and parts of the electorate.
	The Secretary of State said at the time that the low turnout was dreadful and that politicians were talking past the people. I agree, but it is the Secretary of State who is talking past the people in the Bill. I want the Assembly and the Assembly Government to do a good job for the people of Wales, and my party wants them to succeed. The Bill includes some good proposals, but the Government could not resist the chance to play party politics with it. It is therefore with a heavy and a disappointed heart that, to support the Assembly and to give the people of Wales a voice, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Bill. I regret that we were unable to have a better dialogue with the Government during its passage.
	I want no nonsense from the Secretary of State and I do not want to hear his usual track of alleging that Conservatives are against devolution. He knows that that is not true. We want to make devolution work and we want it to secure substantial cross-party agreement on many matters. Ours is not an anti-devolution vote, nor is it an anti-Assembly vote. It is a vote against a Government who put party before people. That is not good for the House, and it is not good for Wales. The Opposition will do everything they can to explain to the people of Wales that the Labour Government are trying to manipulate their future for 10 or 15 years on the basis of a Labour fix while they remain in power. I sincerely hope that they will lose that power at the next Assembly election in 2007. In the meantime, to protect the health of the Assembly, its effectiveness and efficiency, and in the interests of the people of Wales, the Opposition have been forced by the intransigence of the Secretary of State and the Government to vote against the Bill.

Martyn Jones: I did not take part in Committee, for the very good reason that I believed that the Government had achieved the right level of devolution and introduced the necessary changes in Wales for the Assembly to further its powers and grow in the way that we all want. I believe that Committee is the appropriate forum for Members to voice their concerns to the Government. I welcome the amendments that have been made, but I am disappointed that the Opposition are going to vote against the Bill.

Chris Ruane: It is a total surprise.

Martyn Jones: I am surprised, and it is a shame. We should vote collectively for a very good Bill which, I hope, will become a very good Act that will support devolution in Wales and throughout the UK, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, for a generation to come.

David Jones: How does the hon. Gentleman square his last statement with the fact that in the Welsh Affairs Committee he voted for the abolition option in any future referendum?

Martyn Jones: I do not regard that as a problem at all. I believe that the referendum could offer other options, but I am happy with the provision in the Bill.

David Davies: rose

Martyn Jones: The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) may wish to raise other desirable options. I would have liked a provision to elect 40 male and 40 female Members, so that there is an in-built gender balance. However, that is not the way this place works. The Bill, on the whole, is acceptable to my electorate and will carry forward devolution in Wales, as I said.

David Davies: The comment that we should all vote for the Bill because the hon. Gentleman happens to think it is a good idea is extraordinary, especially given the fact that, in opposition, Labour Members often voted against Bills, such as the Maastricht Bill and even the Welsh Language Act 1993, which they subsequently thought were quite good ideas. They always put their party politics first. We are putting our principles first tonight.

Martyn Jones: I cannot follow the logic of that: when we were in opposition, we did not put our principles first, but the Conservatives are doing the same as we did in opposition. I find that a bizarre argument. I am more than happy to support the Government on a Bill which, overall, is good for Wales.

Lembit �pik: We have heard some interesting debates and exchanges, not least the rather curious claim from the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) that as the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) points out, something that is rank and despicable when Labour does it is a matter of positive principle when done by the Conservatives. But that is not the only reversal that we have witnessed in the five days of debate on the Bill. Who would have predicted at the turn of the century that there would come a debate and a vote where the Government argued passionately in favour of the d'Hondt electoral mechanism and the Liberal Democrats voted against it? What a remarkable turn of events.
	We also had the remarkable discovery of a mysterious and shady organisation, the Bevan Foundation, and we unveiled some research sponsored by a cheeky monkey from Caerphilly, as it turned out. He is not in his place today. I presume he is out there trying to prove, together with another 47 random members of the public, that 35 per cent. constitutes a majority. The most surprising claim is that because the Conservatives support devolution, they will vote against it. I studied philosophy at university, and I never came across that kind of logic. I got a 2:1, so I was not too bad at it.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said some interesting things in the spirit of the new liberal Conservatism that did so well in Dunfermline. She said a moment ago that she had started with a positive attitude towards the Bill on Second Reading. Let me remind her that she said on 9 January that
	as Leader of the Opposition just before Christmas my right hon. Friend
	I presume she meant the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)
	made it clear that devolution and the National Assembly are now established features of the Welsh political landscape. I hope that the Secretary of State will resist the temptation to revisit past battles over devolution and misrepresent out position. A future Conservative Government will seek a constructive relationship with the Assembly.
	As far as I can tell, one can judge a party by what it does, and today, if I understood the hon. Lady correctly, the Conservative party, the official Opposition, will vote down a flawed but nevertheless genuine contribution to the devolution debate and to devolution. I agree that the Bill is disappointing, but why vote against it? Surely she understands that all the high talk about a pro-devolution Conservative Government does not stand up if the Conservatives cannot even bring themselves to support such a limited and timid measure as the Government offer.
	On the subject of fighting old battles, the hon. Lady will remember that the hon. Member for Monmouth said on 9 January:
	I was delighted to stand against the original proposals for the Welsh Assembly. I can see that it has had some advantages in terms of openness, but those advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages. We have caused enormous damage to the UK.[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 46, 88.]
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has said that her party is united, and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) criticised my suggestion that there are splits. However, I did not make up those two quotations, which were made in the same debate by Conservative Members of Parliament. The biggest irony is that the Conservative Member who talks down devolution is a Welsh Member.

David Davies: rose

Lembit �pik: I knew that that would work.

David Davies: If the hon. Gentleman were to shorten his speech, he would get to hear some more comments. I am sure that many people would like to hear from the monkey rather than the organ grinder.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I would rather hear about the content of the Bill.

Lembit �pik: I would be happy to take lessons from Conservative Members, if the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is apparently a Welsh nationalist, had stayed for Third Reading instead of making

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we should discuss the content of the Bill.

Lembit �pik: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal were available for comment, I am sure that he would have something to say in his defence, but no doubt he is at home writing his next speech on Northern Ireland or Scotland.
	Although I have had a little bit of fun at the expense of Conservative Members, my criticism of the Conservative party is entirely serious. The Conservative party cannot be credible on devolution if it offers vague, warm words about hoping that the Bill would be good enough by Third Reading while behaving in a way that shows that its colours have not changed one iota on devolution. I believe that the mood of the hon. Member for Monmouth is in tune with what is going on in the Conservative party.
	The Bill poses real dilemmas for the Liberal Democrats. We are a pro-devolution party that believes passionately in the best devolutionary arrangement for Wales, which was set out by the Richard commission. The Richard commission proposed an 80-Member Senedd with primary law-making powers elected by a single transferable vote system, and the Bill delivers some of that. The Bill provides two pathways for the Assembly to gain primary legislative powers, which are otherwise known as Assembly Measures, namely the Order in Council procedure and a referendum in Wales. It also creates a strong and clear basis for the Assembly to exercise greater powers more efficiently by separating the Assembly's Executive and legislative elements. That change was so desperately needed that the Assembly was heading that way itself through various ad hoc measures, and it is to the Government's credit that they have formalised that distinction. The Bill is a step away from the Conservative anti-devolution strategy, which would significantly dilute the potential for Wales to gain primary legislative powers by putting a whole series of restrictions and conditions between where the Liberal Democrats would like the Welsh Assembly to be and where it actually is.
	So much more could have been done in the Bill, which is the product of compromise not with other parties or pro-devolution organisations in Wales, but with Labour Back Benchers. By caving in to internal pressure, the Government have missed an opportunity, and a number of points will need to be reconsidered in a future reworking of the devolution argument. In fairness, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has highlighted concerns that we share. The extreme concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State is not appropriate. The arrangement is almost colonial: unlike Scotland, Wales must go cap in hand to the Secretary of State for Wales.
	The Secretary of State can turn down requests for pretty much any reason. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said, every one of the modest changes that we proposed to reduce the Secretary of State's governor-like potential to intervene was rejected. The Welsh Affairs Committee said that
	the Secretary of State's powers should be limited to refusing Orders in Council on the basis of procedure, not the merits of policy aspiration.
	The Secretary of State can shake his head, but he must recognise that the limitations proposed by the Committee have been ignored.
	The banning of dual candidacy has been discussed in great detail. We feel that there is no justification for that, as did the Richard commission. The Government have acted in a way that I can understand emotionally but is not right in terms of human rights and democracy. Having people standing in a list on a constituency basis does not devalue the integrity of the electoral system or act as a disincentive to vote in constituency elections. Nevertheless, we lost that vote, and Welsh democracy has been somewhat compromised as a result.
	We talked about the Barnett formula and the injustices of having a somewhat random formulation. I proposed, and we voted on, the modest request for a panel of experts to suggest how it could be done better, but even that was not accepted by the Government.
	The limit on the scope of the Welsh Assembly's powers is another frustration. The Secretary of State rightly commented on Wales's potential to be a beacon for the environment, yet the Assembly does not even have the power to legislate on power stations over 50 MW. That could become very significant in the nuclear debate.
	On powers over policing, we all know that the majority of people in Wales, and a large proportion of police officers themselves, are opposed to the centralist

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman once again that a Third Reading debate concerns the contents of the Bill rather than what is not included?

Lembit �pik: All right. Nevertheless, Madam Deputy Speaker, we did discuss those issues, and in every single case I felt that the Government were not only intransigent but completely unwilling to listen to the many reasonable points made by Members on both sides of the House.

Cheryl Gillan: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully. He has read out a catalogue of aspects of the Bill with which he categorically does not agree. How does he think that he will help the Assembly and the people of Wales by abstaining or voting for it? Can I persuade him to join me in the Lobby with the intention of voting to try to improve the situation for the Assembly, and not to accept the flawed Bill to which he has outlined his objections?

Lembit �pik: Despite its imperfections, of which there are many, the Bill is marginally better than the existing arrangements. The channels to primary powers, narrow though they are, represent an improvement on the Government of Wales Act 1998, the passage of which I was as intimately involved in. Liberal Democrats will support the Bill because it is a small step in the right direction towards the truly democratic and authoritative representative body that Wales needs and desires. What matters now is that we understand the way in which the new system will work. In particular, I hope that the Secretary of State will apply his mind to the many criticisms of the Orders-in-Council process that he envisages. I am not even sure that we have spotted all the unintended consequences, but I suspect that it will be fraught with problems.
	My answer to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is that we have to make a judgment about the real situation. Instead of making the tokenistic gesture of filing into the No Lobby, as if that is in any way a responsible and mature commitment to what we are trying to achieve, we will, with a heavy heart, vote with the Government.
	The Conservatives feel uncomfortable about that because it serves only to highlight their anti-devolution position and I am not surprised that they want members of other parties to vote against the Bill, but there is no prospect of the Liberal Democrats doing that.

Cheryl Gillan: Hypocrisy.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Lady accuses me of hypocrisy. How ironic that she does that after pretending to hope that the Bill would change so much that she could vote for it on Third Reading. She pretended that, in all but absolute fact, the Conservatives voted against Second Reading, dressed up as voting for a reasoned amendment. She should be cautious before accusing me of hypocrisy. I may be many thingsan unsuccessful punter when it comes to the leadership election in my partybut I do not believe that I am hypocrite.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can take some of the heat out of the debate and remind the hon. Gentleman again that we are debating Third Reading.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is now blackmailing me from a sedentary position and it has worked. I shall move on to my conclusion.
	The true party of devolutionthe Liberal partywas talking about devolution when the Labour party was in short pants. It is a delight to witness the first faltering steps towards a grasp of what devolution means. I know that the Secretary of State, who is truly in favour of devolution, would perhaps like to go further.

Peter Hain: I would not.

Lembit �pik: In his heart, the Secretary of State is a Liberal, and hope springs eternal.
	Although we hoped for a big step forward, we have a small shuffle in the right direction. However, even the Bill's modest powers are better than nothing. I assure hon. Members that Liberal Democrats will continue to dream of a devolution settlement that is worthy of the nation that we represent. It is a shame that the Government found themselves snoozing for five days at the various stages of the Bill's passage. However, I hope that, through working together, the Government will perceive the flaws in the measure and have the humility to come back and put right the elements that they have allowed to go badly wrong in the five days and 33 hours that we have had in which to debate the matter so far.

Hywel Francis: I want to place on record my personal support for the Bill and that of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing.
	In Committee, I presented several constructive proposals and criticisms on behalf of the Welsh Affairs Committee. We noted the Government's responses and it is important to acknowledge that we are taking an importantsome may call it modeststep forward. Nevertheless, as a strong and long-standing supporter of democratic devolution, I believe that it is a critical step forward for the people of Wales. I am proud on behalf of not only the Welsh Affairs Committee but my constituency and the people of Wales to say that the Bill constitutes a major step for democracy in Wales and in the whole of Britain.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that, when one is attacked on the one hand for not going far enough and on the other for going too far, it may be because we have got it right?

Hywel Francis: I think that I understand my hon. Friend and I suppose that I agree.
	It is important to recognise at this vital stage that the Bill was a Labour manifesto commitment that we are now fulfilling. I am delighted, on behalf of the Welsh Affairs Committee, to support it.

David Davies: The Secretary of State began his speech with the bizarre accusation that the Conservative party is trying to undermine devolution or prevent it from working. Ever since the referendum, the Conservative party has worked flat out to ensure that an institution with which we did not especially agree works as well as possible for Wales. That is why we got involved in the Welsh Assembly and why Conservative Assembly Members work so assiduously to scrutinise legislation in Committees and in the Chamber. That is why we hold surgeries every week, and why we raise issues on behalf of our constituents at local and national level

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I have said to other hon. Members? We really must concentrate on the content of the Bill on Third Reading.

David Davies: Very well, Madam Deputy Speaker, but one of the major effects of the Bill is the change in the voting system that has been proposed because Labour Members have said that they are tired of Members who represent regions popping up in constituencies and opening up offices to compete with other Labour Assembly Members for their work. That is what my Conservative colleagues in the Welsh Assembly have done, and I am very proud of them. It is partly because we have worked extremely hard to make devolution work for the people in Wales that Labour Members have become frustrated and have had to use their strength in Parliament to change the voting system in a way that they know will hinder the Opposition parties. I represent a constituency in the Welsh Assembly, but I have had Assembly Members from other parties, including the Liberal Democrats, claiming to be the Assembly Member for Monmouth. In reality, if the constituency Member is doing their job properly, they have nothing to worry about.
	The Secretary of State for Wales undermined his own argument when he admitted that he would never hold a referendum unless he thought that he could win it. We argue that the Government should hold a referendum and let us see what the people of Wales have to say. I am not afraid to put these matters to the people of Wales, even if the Secretary of State is. We know why the people would vote against giving any further powers to the Assembly. Contrary to what the Secretary of State says, we have longer hospital waiting lists there, and fewer schools, and higher council taxes

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been asked once to confine his remarks to the content of the Bill. I hope that he will do that; otherwise I shall insist that he does.

David Davies: We will vote against the Bill tonight not because we do not want devolution to work but because we want to reflect the views of the people of Wales. Even the Secretary of State for Wales has admitted tonight that those people would not be in favour of giving the Assembly any further powers.
	Tomorrow will be an historic day in Wales, and I shall be down there with my colleaguesyes, in a building that we might not particularly have wanted in the first placemaking sure that devolution works.

Albert Owen: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who leads so graciously with his chin on so many issues. He talks about a referendum, but we know that he would vote against it. He has said tonight that he is pro-devolution, yet he is going to vote against that, too.
	I happen to agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) said, but we think that things should move at a different pace. That is the difference between us. In 1997, I was happy to work with many pro-devolution parties to get the Assembly up and running, and it was a great tribute to the cross-party coalition that that happened. The referendum result in my constituency reflected the national picture51 per cent. were in favour and 49 per cent. against, which is why we have to be a little cautious about the pace at which we move forward. I engage a great deal with my constituents and I do not think that they have the appetite for the great change that the Liberal Democrats and, certainly, Plaid Cymru wantnamely, total independence. Plaid Cymru wants to use the Assembly to move towards full independent status. I want the Welsh Assembly to work for the people of Ynys Mn, and I believe that the Bill is pitched just about right in that regard.
	I am proud to follow a strong tradition, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). Our predecessors, Jim Griffiths and Cledwyn Hughes, were the real architects of devolution, and they knew what was acceptable to the people of Wales at the time. They set up the Welsh Office and introduced the biggest pieces of legislation of the time to help the Welsh language. I remember talking to Cledwyn Hughes after the 1997 referendum debate. I thought that he would be very disappointed at what was on offer, but he said no, it was about right. It was enough, given the shock when we lost the referendum in 1979, and he felt that we had to move at an appropriate pace.
	The Bill has three main parts. There is consensus on the part that separates the Executive from the corporate body of the Assembly. We all agree with that. My difficulty with the Conservatives' argument is that although, in Committee and on Report they said time and again that we should not amend an arrangement that was only a few years old, they agree with us on that aspect. Even the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said tonight that we could have had a Bill dealing only with the separation of powers. The Conservatives really are confused about the Bill as a whole.
	Then there is the banning of the dual mandate. That is confusing. Like the hon. Member for Monmouth, I do not get exercised about it, but I recall that when I was first elected a Member of Parliament, the Assembly Member who is now the leader of the Opposition in the Assembly did get exercised when a Conservative list Member used to claim to be the based Assembly Member in that constituency. That has changed a little. It does not really bother me, but it is confusing when losers under the first-past-the-post system become winners. I think it right to adjust the position. The Opposition's arguments about gerrymandering and rigging were unfoundedthey had no evidence to support their claim that the measure would benefit the Labour party. I do not think that it will be of benefit, but I think that it will clarify the situation.
	The other main measure involves Orders in Council. On the eve of St David's day, I hope that one of the first Orders in Council from the Welsh Assembly will be for a public holiday in Wales. It would be very symbolic. I believe in enabling powers, and in working in partnership with the National Assembly. It is important for that young institution to produce positive measures that we can discuss and on which we can make progress.
	I want devolution to move faster because I am a pro-devolutionist. I always have been, following a proud tradition in my constituency. However, I do not think that we should move too far ahead of the people in Wales. I think that the Bill has the balance about right. That is why, as a pro-devolutionist, I am proud to support pro-devolution measuresunlike the Conservatives, who claim to be pro-devolution but are prepared to vote against any pro-devolution measure at any stage in the House.

Stephen Crabb: I am sure that we are all looking forward to the end of this long groundhog day, so I shall be brief.
	Ministers, I am sure, hope that the eventual passing of the Bill will be greeted in Wales with a Millennium stadium-style roar of approval, but I believe that it will be greeted with an empty millennium dome-style wall of silence and lack of interest. We should not forget that nearly two thirds of the Welsh electorate did not participate in the last Assembly elections two and a half years ago, and I see nothing in the Bill that will deal with that problem.
	I want devolution to work. I am one of the Conservative Members who are open-minded about how the devolution settlement might be extended and deepened in years to come. What the people of Wales signed up to in the referendum, by the thinnest margins, was Executive devolution, not legislative devolution. What the Bill gives them is legislative devolution in all but name, through a piece of constitutional trickery. That is why, with a heavy heart, I shall vote against the Bill this evening. I want the Assembly to workI want it to be an expression of a vibrant political culture in Wales. However, I consider the Bill to be deeply flawed.

Nia Griffith: It gives me great pleasure to speak on Third Reading. I know that my predecessor James Griffiths, the first Secretary of State for Wales, would have been proud to see the Bill become law. He was very clear that there should be a Wales Office. He was also very clear that there should be a strong voice for Wales in the Cabinet. He was an enthusiastic advocate of devolution long before it became popular. At the same time, he did not want independence for Waleshe saw Wales as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
	To me, the Bill represents an important step in bringing decision-making nearer to the peoplethe people who will be affected by the decisions. Given the increasing emphasis on globalisation, it is important for us to find the correct level for each type of collaboration and each type of legislation. I believe that the Bill brings power to a more appropriate level. At a European level, we can discuss issues such as the environment and working together to maintain decent working conditions and standards of living for workers across the European Union, while ensuring that our own workers are not undercut.
	In this place, we discuss issues appropriate to the UK as a nation, such as defence, finance and law and order. The Bill will enable the Assembly to have a much greater degree of flexibilitya flexibility that will allow it to reflect more truly in its legislation the concerns and wishes of the people of Wales. As I said, I see the Bill as an important step in bringing decision making closer to the people. We need to go further and to ensure that we listen more carefully to our town and community councils. We must renew and strengthen our community spirit and get more people involved in the decision-making process.
	Although the list system has been much criticised, it does give a much louder voice to those voters whose parties do not do so well under the first-past-the-post system. They have the Labour party to thank for that. The Assembly is a very representative body that reflects the diversity of community and politics in Wales. The Bill will give it greater opportunity to reflect the needs and wishes of the people of Wales. I look forward to attending the opening of the new Assembly building tomorrow, and I wish the Assembly as an institution a very successful future.

Adam Price: The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) is of course rightthe Charter Secretary of State for Wales advocated the creation of a Welsh Office as early as 1946, I believe. Of course, it took almost 20 years to achieve that modest objective, and that is part of the problem that we as a nation have had to face, namely, the exasperating, almost glacial speed of political devolution.

Nia Griffith: rose

Adam Price: Time is short, so if the hon. Lady will forgive me I will not give way.
	This Bill, like so many home rule Bills in our history, stands in a long line of half-measures and missed opportunities. Tom Ellis's home rule Bill, for example, was struck down by a Liberal Government and certainly was not given time or support. Such things have happened throughout our history. People sometimes speak of a slippery slope to independence, but the slope certainly is not slippery and it is always uphill. Every small step constitutes precious ground that those of us in the national movement, and devolutionists in other parties, have had to fight for every inch of the way.
	Lord Morgan of Aberdyfi has pointed eloquently to the fact that it took some 70 to 80 years longer to establish a Welsh Officein 1964than it did to establish the Scotland Office. He said that that was a product of our being a conquered people. Only a Labour parliamentarian could say that without getting heckled, but there is probably something in what he says. Consider our history as a nation. In contrast with Scotland, we did not retainin fact, we did not even havemodern institutions of civil society. We had an absentee aristocracy, followed by an absentee landlord and political class. Because of that, we have had to make these halting steps forwardsteps that we see once again in this Bill.
	I do not think that the Government have got the Bill just about right, but I do not think that they have got it totally wrong, either, which is why I will support Third Reading. If we had refused all along the crumbs and half-loaves that were sometimes given to us by the political establishment in this place, the Welsh nation would have withered on the vine. We have to accept that pragmatismthe accepting of sometimes deficient measuresis part of our history. However, I look forward to the day when Government of Wales Bills no longer echo in this Chamber and when the governance of Wales will not be a matter for debate in this neo-gothic monument. It will be a matter, entirely properly, for the people of Wales, and will be dealt with where it belongsin the Senedd that will be symbolically opened tomorrow. One day, it will be open in earnest, and have all the powers that a Welsh nation with the right of self-determination will deserve.
	The late Gwyn Alf Williams said that Wales as a nation had existed for almost 1,600 years, and that it was about time that we got the keys to our own front door. We are still waiting. The Government somehow suggest, through the post-referendum device, that Welsh democracyand, by extension, even the Welsh nation itselfis not yet mature enough to have the full range of primary law-making powers. I reject that assertion. It is symptomatic of the strange position that Wales is in that one of the oldest nations in these islands and on this continent should be one of the youngest democracies. There is a contradiction and a tension there, and that is why I think that, in his heart of hearts, the Secretary of State does not believe his own assertion that the Bill, shot through with contradictions as it is, can resolve the national question that we in Wales have debated for so many generations. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is also shot through with contradictions and tensions: he is certainly a complex political operator.
	The Secretary of State said earlier that the matter has been resolved for a generation, but I think of a generation as lasting 20 years. I am not prepared to wait that long to get primary law-making powers in Wales[Interruption.] He also said that no other party had delivered devolution for Wales. However, I thought that the referendum campaign was meant to be a collective enterprise that went beyond political party divisions. How easy will it be to resurrect that sense of collective endeavour, given the sectarian and partisan approach displayed even tonight by the Labour party and the Secretary of State?
	We must recreate the national consensus created in 1997 so that we can make progress along the long and arduous path towards national self-determination. By their approach to the Bill, the Secretary of State and his colleagues have made that difficult task even more onerous. Unfortunately, that will be the badge of shame that he must carry.

David Jones: I shall be brief, as I know that time is short. The Bill is a huge missed opportunity. The Secretary of State said that it is intended to settle the devolution issue for a generation, but it will do nothing of the sort. What it has done is to sow seeds of constitutional strife that it will take the next Conservative Government to resolve.
	Some elements of the Bill are laudable: I support them, and should have liked to do so wholeheartedly. First, the separation of the legislature from the Executive is manifestly desirable. The arrangement established by the original devolution settlement was wrong, and should have been rectified long ago. That is a laudable provision and I support it.
	Similarly, if the Secretary of State had had sufficient courage to go to the people of Wales at this stage and ask them if they wanted more devolution and more primary powers, I would have had much more respect for his position. However, he did not do that; instead, he has resorted to an opaque and byzantine device that effectively gives primary powers to the people of Wales without prior consultation in a referendum. The Secretary of State will find that in years to come the people of Wales will grow to resent that. They will demand the right to state their position in a referendum, and I hope that they do it sooner rather than later. I also hope that at that stage the Secretary of State will listen to what they have to say and abide by their decision.
	The Bill is flawed. As a matter of principle, I cannot possibly support it. Frankly, I find the position of Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats accommodating in the extreme. They have compromised their principles, but the occupants of the Conservative Benches will not. For that reason, I shall vote against the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to speak towards the end of the very long process of our dealings with the Bill. I spoke on Second Reading, I spoke in Committee, and I am pleased to be here at the denouement. I am also pleased to see that at the end of the long process of Welsh debate on what will become the Government of Wales Act, many English Members are gathering on the Benches here to see it through[Interruption.] And Scottish and Northern Ireland Members, too.
	I begin by congratulating fellow Members on the arduous journey of these debates, and on bringing the Bill to what I hope will be a successful conclusion, which we shall see in a few moments. I also thank the Chairman and the members of the Welsh Affairs Committee, who have contributed so strongly to the development of the Bill with their ideas. I want to mention the members of the Wales TUC and the CBI, whose support has undoubtedlyalbeit on one small part in one clausecontributed significantly to ensuring that the voices not only of employers, but of employees and unions are more firmly represented in the Bill than has previously been the case in legislation. That recognises the good work that the Welsh Assembly has already done in dealing with the affairs of business, and also puts it there right in front of us so that there can be no retreat.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) mentioned that we now have half a loafbut my reading of the situation is that at the moment half a loaf is what is being demanded. There is no stomach for anything more than what is on offer. However, this is still a process, and there are still questions. Devolution was never a moment in time, or a definitive statement followed by a stop.
	What is in the Bill undoubtedly will not satisfy some Members here because it does not go far enough for them. For others, it goes much too far, and they would like us to roll back the whole thing. I have been speaking to my constituents since the start of the process, at the time of Second Reading and all the way through. I have to say that there are not many people knocking on my surgery door to ask about the Billand when we do get into discussion about it, there is no great appetite for running headlong into further referendums and transfers of primary powers. However, what there isand what the Bill in its present form recognisesis the fact that the Welsh Assembly Government are starting to deliver well. They are starting to be recognised more and more by the Welsh people for the way in which they connect with communities, consult and, at a very local level, do far more than the old Welsh Office used to do. That is good, but there is no appetite to rush headlong any further.
	The three main components of the Bill, and the split between the Executive and legislative powers, seem to have caused no great difficulty for most people. By and large, that was one of the easiest areas to take through. I think that all of us, or at least many of useveryone apart from the Conservativesare looking forward to maximum use of the Orders in Council, and to seeing that system working. It is a good stage development of the devolution process. Labour Members recognise that the Bill does not go as far as some people want, but we think that what we now have with the Orders in Council, and what we will be voting on in a few minutes, is exactly what the Welsh people are now willing to accept.
	The most contentious area of all is the idea of standing as a first-past-the-post candidate in one seat, losing and then, the following morning, being resurrected as a regional Member. We will never agree on that across these Benches, butas we have said throughout progress on the Billit does not seem right, in terms of natural justice, that there should be a Lazarus-like resurrection of candidates the morning after they have been soundly defeated. We will not agree on that, but we think that the changes are appropriate.
	I also wish to put firmly to bed the idea, which has been frequently thrown at us, that the most contentious proposal has anything to do with gerrymandering. We have shown time and again that[Interruption.] As has just been said from a sedentary position, it is not partisan, because Labour Members will be as likely to lose out as Opposition Members. I do not wish to regurgitate the arguments from Committee, but the changes are to no one party's particular advantage.
	I welcome the approach being taken by the Liberal Democrats and Plaid, because even though they are not happy with everything in the Bill, they have said that they will go out and try to make it work. Regrettably, that is in stark contrast to the major Opposition party. At the beginning of this process, we hoped that the Conservatives would say that although they had difficulties with some of the details, they supported in principle the idea of staged devolution at a pace suitable to the Welsh people. Unless Opposition Members change their views in the next few minutes, it seems that only one party in Wales will, once again, nail its colours firmly to the anti-devolution mast. That is a matter for great regret because, regardless of the difficulties with the Bill, it would be great to be able to say with one voice that we were all united.

Cheryl Gillan: I reiterate that it is with heavy hearts that we will vote against the Bill. We are not prepared to support devolution by taking scraps that fall from the Labour table, as the Liberal Democrats and Plaid obviously are. In voting in that way, we will vote in the interests of the Assembly, the people of Wales and Wales itself. To represent our position in any other way would be dishonest.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have been called worse things in my time and probably will be again. However, whether the Bill is scraps from the table or half a loaf, what is on offer tonight is exactly what the Welsh people are demanding. It is a huge regret that at the last minute of the eleventh hour the Conservative partythe main Oppositionshould set its face firmly against devolution. The Conservatives cannot seriously hold their heads up high tomorrow. They cannot ever again say that they support devolution. They would be   laughing stocks if they tried to maintain that position.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden), I take particular pride in and satisfaction from the fact that new clause 12which is unique to this Bill and has been incorporated into it through the Government's acceptance and with cross-party supportwill strengthen the links not only with employers' federations and small and large businesses, but with our union colleagues. That will be a major advance in the Assembly's existing arrangements. In major decisions on environmental, social and economic well-being, there will be a duty for the Assembly to consult employers and employees.
	That is a huge move forward and I regret that this evening the Conservatives will be voting not only against devolution and the principles of devolution, but against new clause 12 which gives a voice to employers and employees. Alone in the House, the Conservative party is setting its face against the CBI, the TUC and devolution in Wales. That is remarkable and I look forward to Conservative Members justifying it not only to their constituents but to the head of the CBI in Wales and the head of the TUC.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 143.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Representation of the People

That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.[Mr. Cawsey.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Value Added Tax

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11439/05, draft Council directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the place of supply of services; and welcomes the principle that tax is due in the country where the service is consumed and that there is a need to create a level playing field for businesses engaged in cross border transactions of services which are subject to VAT.[Mr. Cawsey.]
	Question agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL REGULATIONS

Ordered,
	That the Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Cross-compliance) (England) Regulations 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 3459), dated 19th December 2005, the Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment Scheme (Set-aside) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 3460), dated 14th December 2005, the Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 (S.I., 2006, No. 168), dated 26th January and the Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Reduction from Payments) (England) Regulations 2006 (S.I., 2006, No. 169), dated 26th January be referred to Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation.[Mr. Cawsey.]

HOUSING (NORTH DORSET)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Cawsey]

Robert Walter: This debate concerns a serious situation in my constituency with regard to the future provision of housing. It exemplifies a conflict between existing structure plans and the yet-to-be-determined regional spatial strategy. It also exemplifies a dilemma because in the north and west of my constituency, which is part of the North Dorset district, the policies seem to be different from those in the eastern part of my constituency, in the East Dorset district.
	In the east, the debate on the proposed regional spatial strategy seems to centre on eating up more of the green belt, whereas it appears that the existing policy framework in the north, and the development of what is today a series of vibrant market towns, is being frustrated by the Government office for the south-west and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Planning, and the calling in of planning applications by the Secretary of State, is obviously a serious matter. It is not my purpose to discuss the merits of these particular applications. That has been performed according to the due democratic process, and if there is a public inquiry, they will be examined there. I want to examine what is behind the decisions to call in the applications, and more particularly the effect that that is having in my constituency and the implications for the future of housing provision there.
	The Government office for the south-west has called in two planning applications that were submitted to North Dorset district council for the Secretary of State's own determination, which would follow a public local inquiry. The main reason given is that the proposal may conflict with national policies on important matters. The planning applications that I refer to are in the town of Shaftesbury, which was recently described by one property magazine as one of the 10 most desirable places to live in England. I do not know whether that was because the local Member of Parliament lives in the town, but I suspect that other factors were involved.
	In that call-in, the inspector will consider the extent to which the proposed developments accord with RPG10, the regional planning guidance for the south-west; the extent to which they are consistent with the adopted Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth joint structure plan and the adopted North Dorset-wide local plan; and the extent to which the applications may prejudice the emerging regional spatial strategy and the consequences for the appropriate scale and distribution of housing development in North Dorset, including in Shaftesbury.
	The two applications are for outline planning permission to develop land for residential and mixed-use purposes. A total of 190 units of affordable housing would be offered in these schemes. They will also offer many community and transport facilities, a cycle-way, pedestrian infrastructure and the expansion of education facilities. The schemes are consistent with the existing local plan and the structure plan and have already been tested by public inquiry.
	North Dorset faces serious problems with the decline in its traditional farming economy. Younger people are leaving the area and there is a growing and large affordability gap for the indigenous population who want to live locally. House prices are rising fast and all the market towns in North Dorset require regeneration.
	The call-in raises important questions and serious matters of principle. The case has been called in ahead of the regional spatial strategyin other words, in advance of any approved regional policy. The regional economic strategy, which has been approved, states that affordable housing is one of the key elements in building the local economy. The provisions made by the Housing Corporation and the district's own housing needs survey show that the applications are consistent with the predictions of needin fact, they fall far short of the needs identified for affordable housing.
	The policy of the regional spatial strategy and Government policy in RPG10 are clear that the main focus of development should be on the principal urban areas, with some growth in other designated centres for growth. Development outside those areas should be smaller scale to meet local needs. Unfortunately, market towns in North Dorset have not been designated as areas for growth; it is self-evident, however, that the market towns need a certain amount of growth to remain sustainable. In the rural White Paper, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs acknowledges that towns in rural, coastal and coalfield regions have serious economic difficulties with the loss of younger people, low wages and heavy dependency on primary industries such as agriculture, which causes social and economic difficulties where there is a large change in those industries. The White Paper sees market towns as a focus for growth in areas that need regeneration.
	North Dorset district council has successfully set up community planning partnerships to assist the regeneration of the market towns. The partnerships have ensured a high degree of local involvement with and support for the development schemes. The White Paper states:
	We want people to be able to live in the communities where they grew up. In the South West there is a severe shortage of affordable housing for local people. We are doubling the Housing Corporation rural programme to provide 3,000 homes a year nationally in small rural settlements and we will provide more affordable homes as part of mixed developments in market towns and villages.
	The district council estimates that about 600 affordable homes are needed each year to meet the needs of the area and wants to focus development in its market towns. That is in line with the spirit of Government policy, but the current mismatch of the regional spatial strategy, the rural White Paper and the regional economic strategy leave Dorset people the losers.
	The letter that the Government office for the south-west sent to my district council on 4 October came as a shock to the local community. It states:
	The first Secretary of State's policy on call-ins is set out in
	a statement made by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), then a Minister of State at the Department for the Environment Transport and the Regions, on
	16 June 1999 in reply to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Mr. Bill Michie
	who at that time was the Member of Parliament for Sheffield, Heeley. Mr. Michie's question was:
	To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about his policy on calling in planning applications under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central replied on behalf of the Secretary of State, saying:
	My right hon. Friend's general approach, like that of previous Secretaries of State, is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for day-to-day planning control in their areas. It is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.
	There will be occasions, however, when my right hon. Friend may consider it necessary to call in the planning application to determine himself, instead of leaving the decision to the local planning authority.
	His policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. He will, in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in his opinion:
	may conflict with national policies on important matters[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 138, c. 333.]
	At the moment, there is not a national policy in that area. Some cases may, according to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central, have significant effects beyond their immediate locality, but there is no clear indication that that is so. Some cases may give rise to substantial regional or national controversy, but I believe that the only national controversy is the one that I am raising in the House tonight. According to the right hon. Gentleman, some cases may raise significant architectural urban design issuesthat is clearly not the case in North Dorsetor may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments.
	The application has been called in. I quote again from the letter:
	On the information so far available to the First Secretary of State the following are matters which he particularly wishes to be informed about . . . :
	(i)
	the extent to which the proposed developments are in accordance with regional planning guidance for the south west (RPG 10), including guidance on rural areas . . .
	(ii)
	the extent to which the proposed developments are consistent with policy advice in the adopted (2000) Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth Joint Structure Plan and the adopted North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan . . .
	(iii)
	the extent to which the applications may prejudice the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy . . . and the consequences for the appropriate scale and distribution of housing development in North Dorset including Shaftesbury.
	The key factor is the possibility that the application may prejudice the emerging regional spatial strategy. It is only emergingit has not yet been agreed. Does that mean that we have to stop? In my constituency, these towns need development. We are not talking about areas that have been ignored. The South West of England Regional Development Agency published a document entitled Raising the Game in which it looked at key economic performance indicators for those areas, including the market towns in my constituency. The percentage of the working-age population with NVQ level 4 qualifications and above is the highest in the south-west region at 30.5 per cent. The percentage of people with NVQ level 3 qualifications and above is 54.7 per cent.more than half the populationcompared with the national average of 45 per cent.
	The average employment rate in my constituency is one of the highest in the area at 82.5 per cent., compared with the national average of less than 75.5 per cent. It is a vibrant economic area, but it desperately needs affordable housing. The provision of such housing is the highest priority in the Dorset community strategy, which has been endorsed by the Dorset strategic partnership that brings together all the local authorities in the country. The sustainability of the market towns is dependent on a certain amount of development through which districts can lever in affordable housing and economic development. The Government are calling for a concerted effort from local authorities to boost the development of housing to meet the urgent need for more dwellings, so it is ironic that the Secretary of State, via the Government office, has called in those planning applications in North Dorset that, together, would provide about 670 dwellings, of which 180 would be affordable homes.
	The sites in question provide the bulk of a major allocation for the town of Shaftesbury, as proposed in the North Dorset local plan, which was adopted in 2003. The strategy behind that plan and the reason for the allocation were scrutinised in the local plan inquiry in 1999. In reaching his conclusions, the local plan inspector noted that he had considered the objections made in the light of PPG3 on housing, which was published in March 2000 while he was writing his report on the objections to the local plan. The plan conformed with the adopted structure plan and regional planning guidance to 2011. Although the Government office raised concerns about the allocation at the modification stage, it did not pursue them or prevent adoption of the plan.
	In accordance with Government guidance, the prospective developers of the Shaftesbury site undertook a major consultation using resources provided by the Prince's Foundation to hold a three stage Enquiry by Design event, which involved the local community and a wide range of stakeholders.
	Planning applications were submitted alongside a detailed environmental impact assessment, and the applications were again subject to major public consultation and detailed scrutiny. The applications were supported by the town council, the local community partnership and, most importantly, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, as the site is surrounded by the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire area of outstanding natural beauty and is clearly visible from a significant National Trust property at Melbury Beacon.
	Together, the applications will contribute not only the 180 new affordable dwellings, but a new bus service to the development, new community facilities in the form of a community hall, open space and more allotments, and major financial contributions to a number of other facilities in the town that were required under the council's planning obligations. Without the contributions that the development will make, many of these facilities may founder, as the development comprises more than half of all the development proposed in the town up to 2011.
	I must ask the Minister to rescind the call-in on the Shaftesbury applications. I urge him to understand the grave concerns about the seemingly heavy-handed approach of the Government office for the south-west and the Deputy Prime Minister towards development in rural areas. As least until there is more certainty regarding the regional spatial strategy, I ask the Minister to adopt a more lenient approach to development in districts such as North Dorset.

Phil Woolas: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on raising an important issue for his constituency in such a logical and professional manner. I will use the time at my disposal to try to answer the points that he made and to explain our policy and how we may move forward.
	The hon. Gentleman's concern about housing is shared by others who have written to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and raised questions about housing in North Dorset. Several have questioned the Secretary of State's decision last October to call in planning applications for residential development at Shaftesbury, which I know to be one of the most beautiful parts of our country.
	Although I welcome the opportunity to discuss housing provision in North Dorset, I cannot comment, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, on the merits or otherwise of the specific proposals, which will, as he says, be the subject of a public local inquiry later this year, and I cannot prejudice the Secretary of State's impartiality. However, the debate is timely, as last December the Government gave their response to the Barker review.
	We announced a commitment to increase the rate of house building from 150,000 per year at present to 200,000 by 2016, and to increase affordable housing for ownership and rent by a new partnership with the private sector to promote shared equity. The Government have just consulted, as has been mentioned, on new planning policy for housingdraft planning policy statement 3on delivering infrastructure using a planning gain supplement and on a new draft code for sustainable homes to improve the energy efficiency of new homes.
	Draft planning policy statement 3 sets out the Government's key objectives for planning for housing to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home that they can afford, in a community where they want to live. To achieve this objective, the Government are seeking to ensure that a wide choice of housing types is available for both affordable and market housing to meet the needs of all members of the community. We are seeking a better balance between housing demand and supply in every housing market, and to improve affordability where necessary and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities in all areas.
	As well as being attractive, safe and designed to a high quality, developments should be located in areas with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Now we start to understand the problem. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has as its key objective sustainable communities in all regions of the country, and this debate is an excellent opportunity to reinforce that commitment. The current regional spatial strategy for the south-west, RPG10, focuses development on the region's principal urban areas, with some growth at other designated centres for growth, which includes the region's main towns and cities. RPG10 advises that development outside those areas should be on a smaller scale to meet local needs. The emerging review of the regional spatial strategy, which the South West regional assembly is considering, seeks to continue and reinforce this direction while increasing overall levels of housing delivery across the region in order to meet growth needs and address the affordability problems that I have described.
	I know that there is an important question about what rate of housing development is appropriate in North Dorset to meet local needs. The Dorset structure plan set a rate some time ago of approximately 335 dwellings a year. That requirement is long overdue for review, and I understand that the emerging regional spatial strategy currently anticipates a much lower rate of 220 dwellings a year by 2026. Some say that that represents a major slow-down of development, limits the scope for affordable housing and threatens to put market towns in the district into recession. Others say that maintaining such high rates of housing development only sustains high rates of car commuting and provides limited benefits to local people.
	What are the possible solutions to that dilemma? I believe it important to look at bespoke solutions to issues and problems in rural communities rather than treating growth as a one-size-fits-all solution, be it North Dorset or North Cornwall. The issue is about understanding our communities' needs and how our communities work. As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, inward migration is a main component of population growth in North Dorset, as it is in the south-west as a whole. Gathering evidence and understanding local housing markets is a key step in ensuring that there is an appropriate mix of housing to meet local needs, including the important issue of affordable housing. As far as rates of housing development are concerned, there clearly needs to be a proper judgment in relation to demand and supply within the housing market area consistent with our desire to promote a sustainable pattern development for the region.
	The regional spatial strategy will set that balance with a planning framework for a sustainable pattern of development for the south-west, and in so doing it will set rates of housing development for North Dorset looking forward to 2026. The Government's commitment to tackling housing supply, to the provision of more affordable housing and to reforms to the planning system equips local communities with the tools to focus on solutions tailored to local needs.
	What are the Government doing? We are keen to increase the supply of housing and to address the problems of affordability. It is clear that there still needs to be substantial housing in the small towns and villages of the region with a focus on delivering more affordable housing. However, it is also important that the south-west owns the agendaif I can put it that way, Mr. Deputy Speakerand seeks its own solutions. Once a draft of the regional spatial strategy is submitted to the Secretary of State, an examination in public before an independent panel will examine the evidence around housing provision in North Dorset and the rural areas of the region.
	The regional spatial strategy will provide rates of housing development for each planning authority in the region. Most importantly, the strategy will be prepared in harness with strategies for housing investment, the environment and the region's economic growth. Together, those measures will provide local communities with a clear strategic context.
	I welcome the way in which North Dorset district council is helping to lead a housing market assessment for the wider housing market area in partnership with other local authorities in Dorset, and I am sure that that will go a long way to providing a robust and comprehensive evidence base on which to understand local needs.
	Draft PPS3 suggests how local planning authorities might use their local development frameworks to set the balance of different household types to be provided across the plan area. Those measures, along with others, are intended to strengthen the ability of North Dorset, and of every local community, better to meet its housing needs.
	Turning to our package of investment in housing, I am extremely proud of the increased resources that the Government have provided for more affordable housing. We have increased spending on new affordable homes to 2 billion in 200708more than double the 1997 level. The region's No. 1 priority is the provision of more affordable housing to help to improve the balance of its housing markets.
	I look forward to the report this spring by the affordable rural housing commission, which the Government have set up to investigate the issues surrounding the provision of affordable housing in rural areas. However, in recognition of the increasingly acute affordable housing issues in the south-west following the 2004 spending review, we have already allocated the south-west the largest increase of the English regionsup from 137 million in 200506 to 203 million in 200708. That is a 48 per cent. increase.
	Final details of the Housing Corporation's 2006 to 2008 programme will be announced shortly, but I can say that in the market area that includes the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it proposes to allocate more than 30 million in 2006 to 2008. Moreover, the south-west housing body has set a target to provide at least 800 homes in the smallest rural settlements, taking an estimated 11 per cent. of the total programme, with a further 85 million intended to be invested in other settlements in rural areas such as market and county towns.
	My Department has as its key objective sustainable communities in all regions. The hon. Gentleman, with obvious commitment to his constituency, has rightly provided an opportunity to reinforce the Government's commitment to a better future for the south-west. I recognise the problem that he describes and hope that I have been able to explain the Government's policy, which recognises the dilemma that exists. I commend that policy to the House and look forward to further debates on the important issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.